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?