NationStates Jolt Archive

This is my first proposal so I am sure it lacks a few things. I would like to hear your opinion about it and answer your questions about it.

Prohibition of DU in arms manufacture.

The nations of the world have already acknowledged that nuclear weapons are dangerous but recently some nations have begun using their nuclear waste in their weaponry. Recent studies have however shown that this so-called depleted uranium is still a severe threat to the health of people over a long period of time. Besides emitting radioactive radiation far above levels that are save for humans to be exposed to for long periods of times DU also poses a danger in another way. When it burns it creates dust particles of uraniumdioxide that can travel for kilometres before being inhaled by persons. Once it has entered the body it will remain there all the while emitting radioactive radiation. This results in increased changes on cancer, birth deformities and miscarriages. Because of this we, the members of the UN:

Ban the use of depleted uranium and other nuclear waste in army equipment.
Require nations that have used depleted uranium and other nuclear waste in war to clean up the waste they left behind.
Prohibit the sale of nuclear waste with the intent to use it in weapons to non UN-members.

In an effort to contain the damage that has already been done and to prevent further damage in the future.

Please don't attempt to confuse the issue with radiation scares.

Depleted Uranium is not especially radioactive. The environmental damage comes from the fact that it is a heavy metal, and that it is poisonous. Uranium fired on the battlefield soaks into the ground and poisons well water as well as becoming a bioaccumulatory toxin which condenses (and therefore becomes more deadly) as it moves up the food chain (say, from grasses like wheat to the creatures which eat that grass).

Using depleted uranium ammunition is poisonous and dangerous - which is unsurprising because it is a weapon. You get similar environmental effects by using lead bullets, mercury filled bullets, or anything like that.

Unless you are willing to shift entirely to steel, tungsten, and laser based ammunition, we strongly suggest that you shelve this proposal. Forcing people to abandon one toxic heavy metal in their ammunition and leaving other toxic heavy metals available is foolhardy. Nations will simply transfer to mercury filled munitions - but mercury has an even greater ability to make the jump from battlefield to ecosystem because it is a liquid.

I know you are attempting to make the world a less poisonous place, but banning one toxic heavy metal's use in munitions simply is not going to do that.

Don't make me come over there.

Interesting, but needs a bit of discussion before we go off writing legislation and all that fun stuff. I'm inclined to agree with the statements made already. Unless you manage to catch all of the potential causes of this damage, you're not doing anything except forcing people to retool their factories and whine about economic damage. You could certainly broaden the proposal, but at the risk of irritating those gun-loving types who think that restricting ammunition will leave them completely and utterly vulnerable to anti-UN nations.

Hmm. Could be fun.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

I am afraid that you are wrong. Rounds of depleted uranium still put out a lot of radiation. The German government confiscated a couple of rounds that a scientist had collected in Iraq when this scientist arrived on the airport. They stated that one round put out as much radiation in 5 hours as is allowed in one year under German law.

Furthermore there is another heavy-metal that could replace DU in ammunition anyway called wolfram.

Links:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1101447.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/forum/1106746.stm
There are many more sites on the web that talk about its dangers but these 2 were the first 2 I got and I think they are enough for now.

The DSH will not be asking our delegate to endorse this proposal, as the Uranium mining industry is our primary export to other nation states - we fear this proposal will reduce our economy.

A loss of customers would do the same.

Just a note - as far as I am aware, depleted uranium is usually referred to as dU, not DU. Not a biggie, but I am a pedant.

Rounds of depleted uranium still put out a lot of radiation.

Depleted uranium is approximately 40 percent less radioactive than natural uranium. Depleted uranium emits alpha and beta particles, and gamma rays. Alpha particles, the primary radiation type produced by depleted uranium, are blocked by skin, while beta particles are blocked by the boots and battle dress utility uniform (BDUs) typically worn by service members. While gamma rays are a form of highly-penetrating energy , the amount of gamma radiation emitted by depleted uranium is very low. Thus, depleted uranium does not significantly add to the background radiation that we encounter every day.

When fired, or after "cooking off" in fires or explosions, the exposed depleted uranium rod poses an extremely low radiological threat as long as it remains outside the body.

When it burns it creates dust particles of uraniumdioxide that can travel for kilometres before being inhaled by persons

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 that I could find 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 tthat of lead, so inhaled fume or ingested oxide is considered a health hazard.

IN summary, you would have to ban several other materials in addition to DU before you could get anywhere...

Enn everybody is using DU not dU although technically that would be better.

Hirosita where do you get your information from? It seems to be not entirely reliable.

I submit to you:
"Aerosol DU (Depleted Uranium) exposures to soldiers on the battlefield could be significant with potential radiological and toxicological effects. [...] Under combat conditions, the most exposed individuals are probably ground troops that re-enter a battlefield following the exchange of armour-piercing munitions. [...] We are simply highlighting the potential for levels of DU exposure to military personnel during combat that would be unacceptable during peacetime operations. [...DU is..]... a low level alpha radiation emitter which is linked to cancer when exposures are internal, [and] chemical toxicity causing kidney damage. [...] Short term effects of high doses can result in death, while long term effects of low doses have been linked to cancer. [...] Our conclusion regarding the health and environmental acceptability of DU penetrators assume both controlled use and the presence of excellent health physics management practices. Combat conditions will lead to the uncontrolled release of DU. [...] The conditions of the battlefield, and the long term health risks to natives and combat veterans may become issues in the acceptability of the continued use of DU kinetic penetrators for military applications."

- Excerpts from the July 1990 Science and Applications International Corporation report: ' Kinetic Energy Penetrator Environment and Health Considerations', as included in Appenix D - US Army Armaments, Munitions and Chemical Command report: 'Kinetic Energy Penetrator Long Term Strategy Study, July 1990'

Furthermore the reason why you haven't seen any good studies on this is because those are classified.

Your quote of that report is inaccurate. For example, that actual report, which you quoted as saying "Short term effects of high doses can result in death, while long term effects of low doses have been linked to cancer." actually said "Short term effects of high doses can result in death, while long terrn effects of low doses have been implicated in cancer." Whichever website you quoted from clearly has a strong bias...and proves that this report has been misreported.

At any rate, note how it says implicated? It accepts that it is not proven, and no clear link has been proven.

At any rate, the DSH does not use vast amounts of depleted uranium - we use the weapons grade uranium instead, which this resolution fails to address.

If I were to try to ban nuclear weapons then I would never get anyones support. However what you fail to counter is the fact that depleted uranium is still radioactive, still poses a great danger to civilians even after the war is over and that it is a big problem for the health of the troops that use these weapons.

If I were to try to ban nuclear weapons then I would never get anyones support. However what you fail to counter is the fact that depleted uranium is still radioactive, still poses a great danger to civilians even after the war is over and that it is a big problem for the health of the troops that use these weapons.

Errrr....I have countered it. I've already told you the majority of radiation is stopped by skin (alpha radiation), a slightly smaller majority is stopped by clothes, walls etc (beta radiation), and the only radiation that is not effectively stopped (gamma radiation) by anything less than a bunker to protect against nuclear attacks is so low that it is tiny in proportion to what is picked up in background radiation. Indeed, you'll pick up more radiation from your television than the average lump of U-238.

The only possible risk is to literally eat the stuff, and I don't think anyone will be doing that soon....and then it's the toxicity of it that is a danger as opposed to the radiation and that is comparable to lead...I don't know anyone stupid enough to eat lead, so I'd imagine the same principles would apply to U-238

We would urge our fellow member to try reading in future. Now what you need to do is prove you know something about radiation and try and argue about how dangerous U-238 is compared to background radiation around us all the time...which considering it's half life is about 4.5 billion years, you'll have a tough time convincing anyone of that.

Or you could argue about the toxicity, but I've already mentioned that.

(OOC: Does it show I've studied physics? :lol: )

the majority of radiation is stopped by skin (alpha radiation), a slightly small majority is stopped by clothes, walls etc (beta radiation), and the only radiation that is not effectively stopped (gamma radiation) by anything less than a bunker to protect against nuclear attacks is so low that it is tiny in proportion to what is picked up in background radiation. Indeed, you'll pick up more radiation from your television than the average lump of U-238.

The only possible risk is to literally eat the stuff, and I don't think anyone will be doing that soon

Now, I'm not an expert on DU nor a physics student, so please feel free to shoot down this argument if my facts are mistaken. But I was under the impression that the main risk of DU is that, although it gives off mainly alpha radiation, DU weapons create a lot of uranium dust on impact, which is easily ingested or inhaled, so all that nasty alpha radiation ends up kicking around in your system rather than safely on the outside. In other words, you can end up having to "literally eat the stuff".

I too must admit that I have not studied physics but I am not a complete layman in the area and you are right east hackney that the biggest problem is that people inhale the stuff. It gets into the lungs and eventualy into your entire body. So the radiation doesn't have to go to clothing or even skin! And since it stays there for years to come you will get exposed to increased doses of radiation for years. And that is why it can have such an impact on your health.

The honourable ambassador from East Hackney is correct, but it is the toxicity of U-238 that has the health impact rather than the radiation, or rather has a greater impact - the radiation impacts have not been adequately measured but it is reasonable to say it is the toxicity that is more dangerous.

At any rate, the DSH would not use U-238 in any combat zone with a civilian presence, in order to try and reduce this potential problem.

Instead of proposing a blanket ban, I would suggest that the further manufacturing of U-238 tipped ammunication is not permitted.

it is the toxicity of U-238 that has the health impact rather than the radiation, or rather has a greater impact - the radiation impacts have not been adequately measured but it is reasonable to say it is the toxicity that is more dangerous.

Out of interest, does the esteemed delegate from Hirota feel able to speculate on the possible radiation impact? The ever-cynical peoples of East Hackney suspect that the reason that this has not been adequately measured is because those [OOC: real-life] nations that regularly use DU weapons would not wish for their effects on health to be widely known.

in addition, it come to our attention that Wolfram Carbide (the alternative suggested) is also toxic when inhaled - indeed might have a greater toxicity than U-238, and suffers from a similar situation on impact - it creates a lot of toxic dust...

If anything, it's Wolfram Carbide that should be banned because of it's more harmful toxic effects.

It is known to Wetland that wolfram is a heavy metal and therefore toxic but we can't ban everything. We however also want to ban the use of DU in the armour of tanks because the same problems arise here.

I fail to see how this has any long term environmental damage, After all uranium is mined from the ground. It can't have poisoned the planet that badly or we wouldn't be here. Also long term affects of low level radiation are actually good for you, indeed lack of radiation has been shown to inhibit growth of plants and animals.

Out of interest, does the esteemed delegate from Hirota feel able to speculate on the possible radiation impact? The ever-cynical peoples of East Hackney suspect that the reason that this has not been adequately measured is because those [OOC: real-life] nations that regularly use DU weapons would not wish for their effects on health to be widely known.

The effects of U-238 as an element are well known, and like I said..."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....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."

In summary, if you breathe it in it is not the radiation that is a problem, it's the toxicity.

It is known to Wetland that wolfram is a heavy metal and therefore toxic but we can't ban everything. We however also want to ban the use of DU in the armour of tanks because the same problems arise here.

I wanted to highlight that Wolfram (more recently known as Tungsten) Carbide is considered just as toxic, and to ban U-238 because of it's radiation threat is a flawed arguement, as it is the toxicity of U-238 that is the real concern, and since it is comparable to Wolfram Carbide (WC) in toxicity, both should be banned.

Moreover, we disagree also that U-238 should be outlawed while non-UN nations will continue to enjoy their use, as it would pose a significant disadvantage for Member states in the combat arena.
_________________________
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (DSH) (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)
http://www.nationstates.net/images/un_member.gif For the region of cm4rums (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/32808/page=display_region/region=cm4rums)

Sorry for making you repeat yourself Hirota... hard day at work and I'm going crosseyed... missed the fact you'd already posted the info I was after...
Anyway, this is an interesting issue. There's been eyewitness reports of (apparent) radiation sickness after DU weapons were used in the Kosovo war, including claims that people's hair and teeth have fallen out after handling chunks of DU warhead. But the science seems to say that that's impossible...I'm going to have to do some digging on this one...

A friend who was a munitions handler in the first Gulf War says many in his unit were sickened from constant exposure to DU.

[OOC:A UN report on DU weapons material (including U-238 and various other materials can be found at http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/en/Report_WHO_depleted_uranium_Eng.pdf in particular it says:

Conclusions drawn by the mission from the currently available scientific data:
1. Depleted uranium is only weakly radioactive and emits about 40% less radioactivity than a similar mass of natural uranium.
2. Scientific and medical studies have not established a link between exposure to depleted uranium and the onset of cancers, congenital abnormalities or serious toxic chemical effects on organs. Caution has been expressed by some scientists who would like to see a larger body of independently (i.e. non-military) funded studies to confirm the current viewpoint.
3. Soldiers, particularly those at the site of an attack, are the most likely to have inhaled uranium metal and oxides in dusts and smoke. It is likely that the general population would not have encountered this form of transmission pathway or, at the very worst, only in very isolated instances.
4. The presence of minute quantities of plutonium in the depleted uranium used in Kosovo was reported by UNEP on 16 February 2001 (press release). UNEP has stated that ‘these newest findings on the composition of the depleted uranium only lead to a minor change in the overall radiological situation and therefore should not cause any immediate alarm’.
5. No convincing evidence is available to indicate any health impacts to the Kosovo population associated with the use of depleted uranium.
6. The health and population information systems presently available in Kosovo do not permit the reliable identification of any changes in disease frequency in the population.
7. The present health information system, in spite of the best efforts of many people, is fragmented and inadequate. In particular, for non-communicable diseases the health information system does not exist. The comprehensive collection and continuing statistical analysis of all forms of recorded illnesses must be re-established swiftly and implemented in all health institutions in the same way. Without a functioning health information system it will not be possible to discern with certainty any health trends in the future, mediated by whatever cause.
8. There are a variety of responses to the claims of health impacts from depleted uranium in Kosovo, and no communication strategy that involves all relevant players is in place. Decisions on health screening, environmental monitoring, the type of analyses and treatment to be given to the data collected, which results to distribute and to whom, and how to issue that information, are being taken separately by different agencies and military groups. These different initiatives and pieces of information provided separately by each of these groups add confusion to the present
situation.
9. Unnecessary speculation and anxiety about the potential for risks from depleted uranium, which, from what the mission can judge so far, are not present or minimal, are being fuelled by the different opinions expressed as a consequence of the normal process of scientific debate, as well as by the lack of a common communication strategy.
10. The presence of high levels of lead in people in the Mitrovicë/Mitrovica region and the absence of efficient measures to reduce the long-term exposure to lead, together with the alarmingly high rate of traffic-related deaths, both observed by the mission, require urgent attention by UNMIK and other organizations. The unlikely health effects of depleted uranium exposure, if any, are much smaller in comparison to these causes of death or incapacity.
11. For a typical type of attack site on soft soil, only a very small fraction of the depleted uranium from the penetrators is likely to exist in the form of uranium oxides or metallic dust on the surface. These are the forms likely to be more mobile in smoke and by wind dispersal. However, even if dispersed, they are likely to become diluted to background concentrations and even then, if some reached nearby settlements, they are not very soluble. Subsequently, even if inhaled or ingested, only a tiny
percentage is likely to be absorbed in the body and even then most of what is absorbed would be quickly eliminated from the body through the kidneys.
12. Most of the depleted uranium is expected to be in the metallic form. Of this, over 70% of the depleted uranium at a typical attack site on soft soil is likely to be buried at depths of up to 3m. Therefore, this depleted uranium will be more isolated from the population.
13. The corrosion and degradation of depleted uranium in metallic form will only occur slowly over hundreds of years. For example, soil composition of natural uranium of 1.4 t per square kilometre plus the entire, gradual degradation of depleted uranium at the illustrative attack site would only add about 5% uranium to the natural abundance.
14. The quantity of depleted uranium physically available to come into contact with civilians at sites with soft soils is considered to be very small. The only sites where higher percentages of depleted uranium may be at the surface are those with hard ground surfaces. These should be regarded as the priority locations if or when any remedial measures are considered.
15. The most believable pathway by which civilians could come into contact with depleted uranium is through picking up objects from the ground surface. Consequently, routine measures to remove depleted uranium objects from the ground surface would be beneficial.
16. The likelihood of depleted uranium entering agricultural products is not known but can reasonably be expected to be small given that most of the depleted uranium is in a solid, very slow degrading metallic form.
17. The likelihood of depleted uranium contaminating drinking water supplies is equally unlikely, although it is considered prudent to consider the effect of a penetrator landing in the bottom of a family well or village spring water collector tank. The mission found no evidence that this situation has occurred in Kosovo, but the leaching characteristics of depleted uranium in stationary or slow flowing water was not found in the literature.


Which would appear to me that such reports are unfounded, and the UN found no tremendous concerns with Kosovo.]

Also we would like to note that depleted uranium has peaceful applications, such as counterweights in aircraft, missiles and racing sailboat keels and as a material used in hospitals for shielding X-rays or gamma radiation from equipment used for radiation therapy.

Aargh. No sooner do I complain about getting eyestrain than our oh-so-thoughtful comrades in Hirota post a gigantic report written entirely in italics. As soon as our glorious leader has recovered from a sudden bout of blindness, we shall peruse the information more fully.

We do fully apologise to East Hackney for this terrible affliction upon their leader, and offer our medical services to purchase a decent set of glasses to facilitate recovery. The DSH's ambassador has long had some form of compulsion to post exceptionally wordy documents, and this is being treated by a team of hypnotherapists.

Cursed double posts!

We respectfully suggest to the delegate from Hirota that he may be working on an intellectual plane too high for the UN. We request that he rewrite the above intelligence so that it uses words of no more than two syllables and further suggest that the Hirota delegate undergoes a lobotomy to reduce his IQ to a point where he will be more at home in these hallowed halls :wink:

Furthermore there is another heavy-metal that could replace DU in ammunition anyway called wolfram.

Not in Fallout California it's not - it's called Tungsten. Nylon-tungsten cored bullets are what the vast majority of the stockpiles in our region are already made from, as we inherited them from the empire from whose ashes we rose. These bullets give off a poisonous gas on impact with armor which quickly settles and poses little environmental risk.

In addition, since Tungsten is so much harder than lead - it gives a significantly smaller residue on the inside of your rifles than does lead and gives a longer life both to your weapons and to civillians.

The radiation properties of U-238 are pretty mild. As noted, it has a halflife of 4.5 bilion years, which compares rather well to the halflife of tritium (the heaviest of water) - which is only 12.3 years. For those of you who don't know - the halflife is a measure of how long it takes half of it to radioactively decay. So a shorter halflife (like 12.3 years) means more radioactive, and the longer halflife (like 4,5 billion years) means less radioative.

In the top 30 cm of soil there is an average of 2.3 tonnes of uranium per square kilometer. It's that heavy yellowish stone that you pass by every day. The radiation you already recieve from walking over it every day is not especially less than the radiation you would get by taking the most radioactive isotopes out of it and then using it on a battlefield.

However, the potential threat to groundwater is much worse. Anytime you ever make a claim which is intrinsically linked to physical chemistry, make sure you have all your facts straight - and look at the research from both sides. If you'd like I could whip out a bunch of studies "proving" that cigarettes don't cause cancer. Only when you look carefully at the biases of the studies can you see that they are completely full of crap.

Don't make me come over there.

OOC: Here's an interesting real world report from Kosovo:
http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/Info-Office/news/archive/uranium.htm
Look carefully at the information the reporters are handing out, vs. the information being handed out by the scientists - like where the reporter says that Uranium is the densest metal at 19 grams / cubic centimeter. That's not even close to true - gold comes in at 19.3, and Osmium has a specific gravity of 22.6.

Here's what the scientists say:
Surface contamination in the areas we visited is trivial and does not pose any threat to the environment. However, some locations contain up to 600 kg of depleted uranium
(2,000 rounds of DU) and there the groundwater may become polluted in the future. There are, however, a number of natural reactions which occur and retard the movement of uranium in soils, rocks and water. These processes will aid in protecting the groundwater.

The implications for people's health are that they are not at risk from DU, unless the drinking water in the future will become contaminated. We have therefore recommended that the groundwater be monitored in the future and analysed for total uranium.

Uranium has a very long half life (4.5 billion years) and therefore the threat will not go away. It will, however, become evident in the next ten years or so whether any sites are at risk of DU contamination.

After much deliberation, the High Council of the Church of Psychotropics has deemed DU too controversial to use. Therefore we have started manufacturing rounds made of Mercury filled Plutonium.

Bishop Rumsfeld, Minister of Defense for all Psychotropics