Wow...just wow

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » March 29, 2004, 10:23 pm

http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/

A grim reminder of what a nuclear reactor accident can do. very interesting.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 29, 2004, 10:40 pm

I wow...just wow'd that site yesterday. Coast to Coast website had a link to it.

Worth a look although most russian towns probably look the same even without radioactive leaks unless their economy has picked up.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » March 29, 2004, 10:50 pm

/shudder
Memories of "On the Beach" there.

emmer · Post by **emmer** » March 30, 2004, 2:08 am

I know Hiroshima and Nagasaki aren't ghost towns like this... but how do the bombs we have now stack up to this level of long term radiation? Are they capable of this?

Avestan · Post by **Avestan** » March 30, 2004, 2:34 am

The bombs we have now are capable of much much more than this.

That being said, I could talk for hours about Chernobyl. Nuclear power in general has a very bad name because of two incidents. . Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island.

All reactors built in the US after about 1955 were required to have 5 levels of safegaunrds built into them to protect against this kind of disaster. That is why this did not happen on 3 mile island and the disaster was completely contained.

In Chernobyl, they only had one layer to the reactor so when it failed, the radiation all escaped. On top of that, the government tried to hide the disaster and did not evacuate people quickly at all. Even when they did, they claimed it to be contained when in reality it was not.

When the US moratorium on nuclear power went into affect, we really shot ourselves in the foot. Necular power is the cleanest and safest form of energy we can currently produce in large amounts.

France sells gigantic amounts of power to Europe every year because they have nuclear plants. If built right, there will never be another disaster like this, but the fear of an episode such as this might always keep us from using it.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 30, 2004, 6:52 am

If built right, there will never be another disaster like this, but the fear of an episode such as this might always keep us from using it

Well, that and the incredibly dangerous and poisonous waste of which we currently have no way of disposing.

Carry on.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 30, 2004, 8:26 am

nuclear power plants produce way less toxic waste than a coal producing plant would, and it only stands to reason that it's much less harmful to an eco system than a hydro electric dam.

the amount of waste (in the form of depleted uranium rods and other toxic by-products) that a nuke plant produces is almost nothing compared to other forms of power generation. what sucks is energy companies lobbying government with big dollars to convert all teh DU into warheads and shells for military weapons, polluting the environment with spent munitions. only in america will the government not only make a nuclear power plant not have to dispose of their own waste, but they will actually PAY MONEY for the waste and turn it into tank shells and smart bombs. the notion of it is so ludicrous that it boggles my mind.

the gayest thing about nuke power plants is that they are so fucking expensive to make a safe one. they want to build another one in ontario to supply more power to the province and offload the surplus to the states, but the cost of building one over another fucking coal plant belching black smoke into the air 24/7 is tremendous. Modern coal plants are less polluting than the old ones, but that is like saying a snail is faster than a slug. they're both so fucking slow, who cares.

I would much rather pay more for power and get a nuclear plant over seeing more coal monsters or dams being built.

ultimately battery technology will reach the stage where solar power will be viable to power at least your own house and small businesses. or we could find a way to harness atokal's closet homosexuality and power the entire planet for free, but that would mean he would have to be alive and I am just not prepared to pay that kind of cost.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » March 30, 2004, 11:53 am

I worked for an electric company for three years. I had this discussion with a plant manager and he said that coal actually gives off more radiation than a nuclear plant with all it safeguards in place. In order to build a nuclear plant today, it costs nearly a billion dollars per plant.

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » March 30, 2004, 12:27 pm

Amazing pictoral.

As a resident of California, I'd love to see another nuclear plant or two put into operation, but I doubt people in California can be sold on something with a nuclear reactor with all of the "we're under teh attack!" hype going around.

Taly · Post by **Taly** » March 30, 2004, 12:34 pm

Wow that is just so sad.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » March 30, 2004, 12:53 pm

I did a study of Chernobyl studying for my engineering degree as part of an engineering ethics class. I was utterly atounded on how something like this could happen. Utter disaster on so many different levels. In a nutshell, the plant itself was of an ancient design, with a potential for meltdown unacceptably high. In addition, like Avestan said, this design couple to only ONE level of containment. A nice recipe for disaster. Moreover, when things did dtart to go wrong, the techs at the plant did absolutely everything WRONG, including turng OFF the water to the cooling system! Then disaster struck...and being the good soviets they are, kept quiet about it. Fire & rescue teams died horribly as they tried to fight what they thought was a normal fire.
My wife was living in Warsaw at the time, and even that far away, the grass in Lazienki park across the street from her aparment had a yellowish hue to it...

XunilTlatoani · Post by **XunilTlatoani** » March 30, 2004, 1:40 pm

I agree that the poor design and construction of Chernobyl led to it being a disaster waiting to happen, but the true cause was poor management of the facility. All of this destruction was caused because of a test they performed in which they disabled numerous backup systems that would have prevented the accident from happening. Whoever authorized or planned such a test deserves the jail time they received.

XunilTlatoani · Post by **XunilTlatoani** » March 30, 2004, 1:45 pm

This is a good narrative that I read a long time ago about TMI...very good read that details the sequence of events leading to that accident (also has background on nuclear reactors):

http://kd4dcy.net/tmi/

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 30, 2004, 1:59 pm

i thought it was pretty interesting to see all the old Soviet propaganda posters and stuff.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 30, 2004, 2:22 pm

We have a nuclear power plant close to the Phoenix Metropolitan area and I'm happy to have it here.

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station is the largest nuclear electric generating site in the United States. Three (3) Combustion Engineering Pressurized Water Reactor units each have an output of ~ 1270 MWe. Each unit has 2 reactor cooling loops, each with a 2 reactor cooling pump and a single steam generator. Arizona Public Service Company is the operator and co-owns the units with utilities in New Mexico, Texas, and California. The Palo Vede site is at Wintersberg, Arizona, 34 miles west of Phoenix. Units 1 and 2 went commercial in 1986 and Unit 3 in 1988.

It's a shame we stopped making them.

There are several companies working on fuel cells. I'd love to be able to power my own home using fuel cell technology in the near future. Like all other alternative energy source research, progress seems slower than it should be.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » March 30, 2004, 2:27 pm

Winnow wrote:We have a nuclear power plant close to the Phoenix Metropolitan area and I'm happy to have it here.

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station is the largest nuclear electric generating site in the United States. Three (3) Combustion Engineering Pressurized Water Reactor units each have an output of ~ 1270 MWe. Each unit has 2 reactor cooling loops, each with a 2 reactor cooling pump and a single steam generator. Arizona Public Service Company is the operator and co-owns the units with utilities in New Mexico, Texas, and California. The Palo Vede site is at Wintersberg, Arizona, 34 miles west of Phoenix. Units 1 and 2 went commercial in 1986 and Unit 3 in 1988.

It's a shame we stopped making them.

There are several companies working on fuel cells. I'd love to be able to power my own home using fuel cell technology in the near future. Like all other alternative energy source research, progress seems slower than it should be.

Why pour $$$ into alternate energy sources when good 'ole crude ole is still cheap, plentyful, and making a handful of ultra-rich people even richer!

hurray!

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 30, 2004, 2:32 pm

Skogen wrote:
Why pour $$$ into alternate energy sources when good 'ole crude ole is still cheap, plentyful, and making a handful of ultra-rich people even richer!

hurray!

some of whom are actively supporting persons who plan terrorist acts against the US!

the short term economic goals of campaign contributors is much more important than the long term strategic defense interests of our country!

Post by **Xouqoa** » March 30, 2004, 3:41 pm

Voronwë wrote:
Skogen wrote:
Why pour $$$ into alternate energy sources when good 'ole crude ole is still cheap, plentyful, and making a handful of ultra-rich people even richer!

hurray!
some of whom are actively supporting persons who plan terrorist acts against the US!

the short term economic goals of campaign contributors is much more important than the long term strategic defense interests of our country!

word

Melrin_Specclaster · Post by **Melrin_Specclaster** » March 30, 2004, 3:55 pm

Lobbyist and special interest groups keep things like this from happening.

Also, its like fixing medicare, everyone knows it needs to be done, but actually doing it would be political suicide (see above). Where career politicians fail.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » March 30, 2004, 3:58 pm

kyoukan wrote:the amount of waste (in the form of depleted uranium rods and other toxic by-products) that a nuke plant produces is almost nothing compared to other forms of power generation. what sucks is energy companies lobbying government with big dollars to convert all teh DU into warheads and shells for military weapons, polluting the environment with spent munitions. only in america will the government not only make a nuclear power plant not have to dispose of their own waste, but they will actually PAY MONEY for the waste and turn it into tank shells and smart bombs. the notion of it is so ludicrous that it boggles my mind.

A clarification here, depleted uranium is a by product of the of the process that makes the fuel for the reactor. Raw ore is processed to create enriched uranium with higher concentrations of the u-235 isotope. The depleted uranium is what is left over. It is less radioactive than the orginal ore. Its primary desirability in weapons is that it is very dense, so it make a good kinetic penetrator.

A couple of links

http://www.dnd.ca/health/information/me ... nder_e.asp

http://www.deploymentlink.osd.mil/du_li ... alth.shtml

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 30, 2004, 4:06 pm

what is your point? its still a toxic by product of nuclear power. there are areas of Iraq near the kuwaiti border that is more radioactive than chernobyl.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » March 30, 2004, 4:18 pm

kyoukan wrote:what is your point? its still a toxic by product of nuclear power. there are areas of Iraq near the kuwaiti border that is more radioactive than chernobyl.

Any data at all for that assertion?

From the first of my links in the previous post.

A souvenir hunter who picked up a piece of depleted uranium penetrator rod (the core of large DU munitions) and carried it in his pocket for a few days would receive a relatively high dose of short-range beta radiation to the skin adjacent to the souvenir. But it would not be enough to cause a burn - much less a significantly elevated risk of skin cancer (1)

In the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists the authors tried to estimate the possible external gamma-radiation levels on the battlefield by assuming that 100 tons of depleted uranium had been distributed uniformly over a one-kilometer-wide strip along 100 kilometers of the "Highway of Death" between Kuwait City and Basra, a city in southern Iraq. The average dose for someone who lived in the area for a year would be about one mrem - or about 10 percent of the dose from uranium and its decay products already naturally occurring in the soil. The dose rate immediately around a destroyed vehicle could be about 30 times higher. But even that figure would only add about 10 percent to the natural background radiation. (1)

The authors of the article in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists also note "For perspective, the driver of a tank equipped with DU munitions would get dose rates of up to 5 times natural background, corresponding to a doubling of the background dose if the driver spent 40 hours per week in the tank all year.

Its toxicity as a heavy metal is considered more of a concern than its radioactivity, but even that isn't thought to be a significant danger in the concentrations left behind after battlefield use.

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » March 30, 2004, 4:25 pm

I want to say thanks to Xunil for that link about TMI. That was one of the most interesting articles I have read in a long time.

What is Depleted Uranium?

The refining and processing of uranium ore involves separating the isotopes U-235 and U-238. ENRICHED URANIUM contains a higher percentage of U-235 than does natural uranium. The enriched uranium used in nuclear reactors contains about a 3 percent concentration of this isotope. Enriched uranium is also used in nuclear weapons.

DEPLETED URANIUM (DU) is the metal residue left when the U-235 has been extracted. It is used commercially in medicine (radiation shields), aviation (counterweights), space (satellite ballast), and petroleum exploration (drilling equipment). DU has also been used for military purposes. It offers improved defense when used as armor shielding and enhanced power when used in armor penetrating munitions. Depleted uranium tipped shells can penetrate armor better than other less dense materials. Approximately ten percent of Iraqi vehicles destroyed during the Gulf War were hit by DU rounds.

Does Canada Have Depleted Uranium Munitions?

The HMCS Athabaskan and the HMCS Terra Nova were both fitted with the Phalanx Close in weapon Systems (CIWS, the rapid-firing anti-missile defence system, an acronym creatively pronounced "Sea-Whiz") prior to departing Halifax harbour for the Gulf War. The Naval Blockade did not see enemy action during this conflict. Depleted uranium requires special storage restrictions, which created logistical problems aboard our ships. It was eliminated from our weapons inventory in 1998. Canadian munitions now use tungsten to "harden" projectiles.

What are the Health Concerns of Depleted Uranium Exposure?

Two major health concerns are related to the use of DU in military applications: heavy-metal toxicity effects and radiation effects. Heavy metals, such as uranium, lead, mercury, tungsten, and others, in sufficient amounts, are toxic to humans and animals. Very few studies directly address the health effects of DU. However, a wide body of scientific literature deals with the health effects of natural and enriched uranium. The toxicological effects of natural uranium are identical to those of DU; while the radiological effects of DU are always less pronounced because DU is about 40 percent less radioactive than natural uranium. In general, heavy-metal toxicity is regarded as posing a more serious health risk than its radiation.

For both health issues, many factors will determine whether a health effect may result. Among others, these factors include the toxicological dose (how much and how long), route and magnitude of exposure, and location of embedded fragments. In addition, other factors including age, sex, diet, family history, health status, and lifestyle may effect the overall health effects of exposure.

This text is from one of Chmee's articles. The canadian site, in fact.

While it does not contradict Kyoukan's statement directly, it does mention that radiologically, depleted uranium is 40% less radioactive than uranium that is naturally found. I will concede that a large stockpile of depleted uranium would be much more dangerous to lifeforms because of the fact that natural uranium is not usually found in mass quantities.

This was another very interesting fact. Thanks Chmee.

EDIT: I hadn't yet gotten to the part of the article about the dispursion of DU over a battlefield. Thanks for that. I can't say that's it's the safest thing on the planet to use in a warhead, but it's significantly less dangerous than I had previously thought.

Also, it's interesting to note that Canada only stopped using Depleted Uranium rounds due to logistical problems, and not because of significant health or environmental concerns. Canada being a very liberal country when dealing with the environment and health, I'd have to imagine that it's a fairly safe isotope for use in a military application. Beyond the fact that it's so dense that it makes for a very attractive round to use in armor piercing munitions.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » March 30, 2004, 4:30 pm

you know I hate spamming links like some fucking weirdo google robot. it's so easy to find this stuff for yourself.

http://www.rimbaud.freeserve.co.uk/dhap99f.html

http://www.sundayherald.com/32522

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/95178_du12.shtml

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993627

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » March 30, 2004, 4:34 pm

kyoukan wrote:what is your point? its still a toxic by product of nuclear power. there are areas of Iraq near the kuwaiti border that is more radioactive than chernobyl.

This is from expended munitions I suppose?
ROFLMAO
Yes a nuclear plant melting down would definately generate less radiation than a few expended munitions.

While you are the undisputed queen of trite, barbed comments you also hold the title for "Most Likely to Post Bullshit as fact"

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » March 30, 2004, 4:39 pm

don't A-10s use depleted Uranium shells, and doesnt the gatling gun on the nose throw out like 1000 shells a minute or something crazy like that?

anyway, more than a "few" expended shells from the first gulf war.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » March 30, 2004, 4:43 pm

350 tonnes of DU is more than a few expended rounds...

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » March 30, 2004, 4:50 pm

Atokal...

She said:

there are areas of Iraq near the kuwaiti border that is more radioactive than chernobyl

then you say:

Yes a nuclear plant melting down would definately generate less radiation than a few expended munitions

Did she say that it produces more radiation? No. The Chernobly disaster happened 18 years ago. The reactor itself now resides in a concrete
sarcophagus. Believe it or not, radiation levels in Chernobyl are not nearly as high when it melted down, and blew up.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » March 30, 2004, 5:01 pm

Voronwë wrote:don't A-10s use depleted Uranium shells, and doesnt the gatling gun on the nose throw out like 1000 shells a minute or something crazy like that?

anyway, more than a "few" expended shells from the first gulf war.

The Thunderbolt II's 30mm GAU-8/A Gatling gun can fire 3,900 rounds a minute

More crazy than you thought!

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » March 30, 2004, 5:34 pm

Skogen wrote:Atokal...

She said:
there are areas of Iraq near the kuwaiti border that is more radioactive than chernobyl
then you say:
Yes a nuclear plant melting down would definately generate less radiation than a few expended munitions
Did she say that it produces more radiation? No. The Chernobly disaster happened 18 years ago. The reactor itself now resides in a concrete
sarcophagus. Believe it or not, radiation levels in Chernobyl are not nearly as high when it melted down, and blew up.

I think Toker was being a general smartass.

In any case, after reading all but 2 of the posted articles on this thread, I find it hard to believe that there are any places in Iraq that have nearly the ambient radioactive levels that Chernobyl has, even this day, from DU rounds.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » March 30, 2004, 5:47 pm

Yeah you won't find that level of ambient radiation by today's standards(though those standards may need to be revised for non LD ionizing radiation)...But the area may be on net as or even more dangerous than Chernobyl...

The problem being it will be a long time before we know with any certainty...I never really considered that heavy metal toxicity and low level radiation effects may be synergistic...But it does make some sense in terms of genotoxic and teratogenic effects...Will have to look at how DU may become bioavailable as well...

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » March 30, 2004, 6:13 pm

Naomi H. Harley is an authority on radiation physics. She earned her Ph.D. in radiological physics at the New York University where she is currently a research professor at the University's School of Medicine, Department of Environmental Medicine. She has authored or co-authored more than 100 peer-reviewed journal articles on radiation exposure, with emphasis on natural background radiation. She has written six chapters in books dealing with radiation or toxicology and holds three patents for radiation measurement devices. She is a council member on the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, an advisor to the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, and an editor of the journal Environment International.

In commenting on reports of some doctors finding traces of depleted uranium in the urines of service members years after any possible exposure, Dr. Harley notes this would only be possible if the military members had depleted uranium fragments embedded in their bodies. She comments on the issue of some veterans being convinced that fragments could be inhaled particles lodged in their lungs by stating "It's hard to imagine that anybody could have inhaled enough material so that it could still be there eight or nine years later, enough so that you could see the amount being dissolved and then getting into the urine."

Harley says she's heard people project that the use of depleted uranium will cause tens of thousands of new cancers in Gulf War veterans and Iraqi citizens, but says such projections frighten veterans unnecessarily because there is no scientific support for such claims. "There is no way you can get enough uranium into the body to cause even one cancer. You can't inhale it, you can't ingest it. You would choke to death before you could inhale that much material." (3).

From http://www.dnd.ca/health/information/me ... nder_e.asp

As linked by Chmee earlier.

Arbo wrote:Yeah you won't find that level of ambient radiation by today's standards(though those standards may need to be revised for non LD ionizing radiation)...But the area may be on net as or even more dangerous than Chernobyl...

Everything I've read today, even from the environmentalists side suggests that the genotoxic effects of depleted uranium is far more a concern than the radiological effects.

How is Uranium Distributed in the Body?

Inhaled, ingested, or embedded uranium fragments reach the blood after solubilizing either at the site of entry or at some other location in the body where they end up. For instance, some inhaled uranium enters the blood from the lungs, and some of the uranium originally in the lungs ends up in the gastrointestinal tract as a result of mucociliary clearance from the respiratory tract and subsequent swallowing. Uranium then accumulates to some degree in all organs. The major portion of uranium in blood is excreted in the urine, with the remainder distributed mostly to bone and soft tissue. The normal range for the total mass of uranium in a human being is 2-62 micrograms.

Bone ash data provide an insight into the amount of natural uranium inhaled and ingested in various countries because in a steady state the percentage going to bone is known. In spite of large differences across countries, we do not observe known adverse health consequences as a result of these differences. Because the radiological effects of DU are less than those of natural uranium and the chemical effects are identical, we can infer that exposure to DU at these levels would also have few health effects on a population.

Arbo wrote:The problem being it will be a long time before we know with any certainty...I never really considered that heavy metal toxicity and low level radiation effects may be synergistic...But it does make some sense in terms of genotoxic and teratogenic effects...Will have to look at how DU may become bioavailable as well...

About the only thing that I noticed still needed to be tested would be the possible contamination of groundwater supplies. This is less of a concern because of irradiating water supplies as it is contaminating water shelves with the uranium. The projected spent uranium dump site in Utah is being opposed on those grounds, but there's very little in the way of scientific study that suggests what level of contamination could seep into groundwater and given the extrememly long half life of Uranium isotopes, what effects, if any (radiological or toxic) could be left as a byproduct.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » March 30, 2004, 6:39 pm

Pahreyia wrote:
Naomi H. Harley is an authority on radiation physics. She earned her Ph.D. in radiological physics at the New York University where she is currently a research professor at the University's School of Medicine, Department of Environmental Medicine. She has authored or co-authored more than 100 peer-reviewed journal articles on radiation exposure, with emphasis on natural background radiation. She has written six chapters in books dealing with radiation or toxicology and holds three patents for radiation measurement devices. She is a council member on the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, an advisor to the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, and an editor of the journal Environment International.

In commenting on reports of some doctors finding traces of depleted uranium in the urines of service members years after any possible exposure, Dr. Harley notes this would only be possible if the military members had depleted uranium fragments embedded in their bodies. She comments on the issue of some veterans being convinced that fragments could be inhaled particles lodged in their lungs by stating "It's hard to imagine that anybody could have inhaled enough material so that it could still be there eight or nine years later, enough so that you could see the amount being dissolved and then getting into the urine."

Harley says she's heard people project that the use of depleted uranium will cause tens of thousands of new cancers in Gulf War veterans and Iraqi citizens, but says such projections frighten veterans unnecessarily because there is no scientific support for such claims. "There is no way you can get enough uranium into the body to cause even one cancer. You can't inhale it, you can't ingest it. You would choke to death before you could inhale that much material." (3).

From http://www.dnd.ca/health/information/me ... nder_e.asp

As linked by Chmee earlier.

Arbo wrote:Yeah you won't find that level of ambient radiation by today's standards(though those standards may need to be revised for non LD ionizing radiation)...But the area may be on net as or even more dangerous than Chernobyl...
Everything I've read today, even from the environmentalists side suggests that the genotoxic effects of depleted uranium is far more a concern than the radiological effects.

How is Uranium Distributed in the Body?

Inhaled, ingested, or embedded uranium fragments reach the blood after solubilizing either at the site of entry or at some other location in the body where they end up. For instance, some inhaled uranium enters the blood from the lungs, and some of the uranium originally in the lungs ends up in the gastrointestinal tract as a result of mucociliary clearance from the respiratory tract and subsequent swallowing. Uranium then accumulates to some degree in all organs. The major portion of uranium in blood is excreted in the urine, with the remainder distributed mostly to bone and soft tissue. The normal range for the total mass of uranium in a human being is 2-62 micrograms.

Bone ash data provide an insight into the amount of natural uranium inhaled and ingested in various countries because in a steady state the percentage going to bone is known. In spite of large differences across countries, we do not observe known adverse health consequences as a result of these differences. Because the radiological effects of DU are less than those of natural uranium and the chemical effects are identical, we can infer that exposure to DU at these levels would also have few health effects on a population.

Arbo wrote:The problem being it will be a long time before we know with any certainty...I never really considered that heavy metal toxicity and low level radiation effects may be synergistic...But it does make some sense in terms of genotoxic and teratogenic effects...Will have to look at how DU may become bioavailable as well...
About the only thing that I noticed still needed to be tested would be the possible contamination of groundwater supplies. This is less of a concern because of irradiating water supplies as it is contaminating water shelves with the uranium. The projected spent uranium dump site in Utah is being opposed on those grounds, but there's very little in the way of scientific study that suggests what level of contamination could seep into groundwater and given the extrememly long half life of Uranium isotopes, what effects, if any (radiological or toxic) could be left as a byproduct.

Ermmm ok I was talking about long term synergistic effects of genotoxicity and low dose radiation...Hayley is using a linear model extrapolated from LD which is being called into question by the work of Mothersill and Miller (in the New Scientist Article)...I was also speaking to long term accrued bioavailability and mutagenesis/carcinogenisis...not individual doseages and the direct deaths from radiation poisoning...

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » March 30, 2004, 7:25 pm

Arborealus wrote:Ermmm ok I was talking about long term synergistic effects of genotoxicity and low dose radiation...Hayley is using a linear model extrapolated from LD which is being called into question by the work of Mothersill and Miller (in the New Scientist Article)...I was also speaking to long term accrued bioavailability and mutagenesis/carcinogenisis...not individual doseages and the direct deaths from radiation poisoning...

There's no doubt of the toxicity of the uranium. In an area where DU munitions have been used and the resulting particulate uranium can be picked up by winds/dust or absorbed into root system/groundwater would very likely (in my opinion) cause a longterm issure of biological toxicology in the area. The threat of mutagenetic effects, while present, would probably favor inhibitor systems for what would be considered "mass uranium poisoning" for the surrounding ecosystems. I don't believe that radiological mutation would be as pronounced in the area. Certainly some adaptations or mutations could and should be found in areas of large concentrations of DU munitions (take the 100 tonnes theoretical model presented in one of the atricles in the area between Basra and Baghdad).

In general conventional war situations however, I don't think that the concentration of DU in a battlefield situation would be high enough to act as a catalyst for mutation or carcinogenic effects. I would not say the same of a concentrated seige or bombing campaign over a smaller location, say a city.

I don't have any scientific proof to back this up, and it is my opinion. I agree that testing the long term effects of DU in an ecosystem is necessary. I'm merely presenting opinion based on having done some extensive reading today on the subject, including articles or briefs on both sides.

Please don't think that I'm making an argument for using DU rounds in combat situations. I think that there may be a time and a place for them (specific rounds for specific purposes, not for general use. i.e. A10 strafing runs), however their use should be highly regulated and controlled.

Drolgin Steingrinder · Post by **Drolgin Steingrinder** » March 30, 2004, 8:48 pm

reading this is completely geek to me.

Karae · Post by **Karae** » March 31, 2004, 4:55 am

Ironically, it doesn't look that different from the outskirts of Moscow, St. Petersburg, or Kiev...aside from the communist slogans.

Personally, I hope to contact this person and take a trip with her the next time I'm in Kiev.

Looks like a frightening, yet life changing, journey.

Laliana · Post by **Laliana** » March 31, 2004, 5:00 am

Pah...do you even have any clue what you are talking about after your first 2-3 sentences? I know I don't.

Pahreyia · Post by **Pahreyia** » March 31, 2004, 5:10 am

Laliana wrote:Pah...do you even have any clue what you are talking about after your first 2-3 sentences? I know I don't.

I learned a lot today... Was a slow day at work so I got to read about 85% of the articles that were posted and a few more that were sub-links on those pages. I read the articles from both sides of the coin, the pro-nuclear power and the anti-nuclear power proponents. I've got a pretty good idea based on my readings and the physics/chemistry classes that I took in college.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » March 31, 2004, 7:36 am

Drolgin Steingrinder wrote:reading this is completely geek to me.

/nod Drolgin

Ahmik · Post by **Ahmik** » March 31, 2004, 9:55 am

after looking through all of the pages, reading what she wrote, and looking at the pages again, I have concluded that

I'd hit it!