The Furtive Atomic War

[Terxpahseyton]

Because I was too lazy to go work out with a buddy or do something else productive but too active to take a much needed nap I decided to do something I wanted to since some time:
Open a thread about a German article I just translated.
The source is the German popular history/science magazine "Welt der Wunder" which originates from a history/science show on German TV which used to be very popular.

For the original pages go here.

The translation (most important parts highlighted):

Spoiler :

The Furtive Atomic War


The Iraqi soldiers are dead before they even heard a shot. With two and a half sonic speed the 12.7 x 99 millimeter sized NATO- projectile dashes towards the T-55-tank. The round is two seconds on its way, with 3600 kilometer per hour. Than it hits the tank's amour. The soft aluminum shell releases its devastating cargo: a core consisting of depleted uranium, one of the most dense substances of the world. With three times the force of a conventional round the uranium core penetrates the tank like butter. On impact the core sharpens, hot uranium dust interacts with the oxygen inside of the tank. A firestorm measuring more than 5000 °C seizes the Iraqi soldiers and drowns the scream of surprise of the occupants. Two seconds it is silent. Than the fire reaches the ammunition inside of the tank. The explosion tosses the tower outside of the tank, a pillar of fire rises towards the sky. Only four seconds passed since the shot, but its effects will be still apparent when no human will live on the world anymore. Fine radioactive uranium dust spreads wide over the area, penetrates the soil and poisons the water. A share of the particles – 100 times smaller than a blood cell each – will be carried into the atmosphere and wanders around the globe. Including to Germany.


No charge when making use of will collect

It is a roaring trade for operators of atomic plants. The arms manufacturers relieve them of the lethal waste. When producing fuel rods radioactive garbage arises: One ton of fuel produces five and a half ton of depleted uranium, which has to be expensively disposed of. Its radioactive alpha radiation is only marginally weaker than the one of natural uranium. Up until today there is no place on earth the atomic waste can securely be stored – yet it increases daily. Every year 12,000 tons are added. But one part of it is of no concern for the atomic industry anymore. The arms industry can have the depleted uranium even for free – when making use of will collect. But what exactly is depleted uranium?

Natural uranium consists to 99.3 percent of uranium-238. Only 0.7 percent are uranium-235, which is fissionable and hence which can actually be used in fuel rods. In order to cause an atomic chain reaction in a plant the share of uranium-235 has at least to be increased to 3.2 percent. An extensive centrifugal procedure is used to build up uranium. In the process the heavy uranium-238 isotopes are separated from the uranium-235 – at least partially that is because a share of the uranium-235 remains in the atomic waste. This waste consists to 99.8 percent of uranium-238 and to 0.2 percents of uranium-235 now. But it remains radioactive hazardous waste – also when used in ammunition.


Death dust

Iraq, Bosnia, Lebanon, Somalia, Afghanistan: The atomic waste reappeared in almost all armed conflicts of the last 20 years. The heavy metal uranium is the new “Superwaffe” [roughly meaning super weapon] of the military, because it penetrates just about everything. The density of uranium is three times as high as of steel, the force if its impacts as strong as the one of a car 700 kilo in weight, which hits a wall with 70 kilometer per hour. Only that with a round the force focuses on one square centimeter.
Everywhere this weapons are deployed the area becomes a death zone. Uranium-238 has a half-life period of 4.5 billion years, the operational zone remains contaminated for all time. But because the military negates the danger of uranium-238 soldiers continue to be stationed. Inside of the body the death dust unfolds its real potential. The uranium particles get into the lunge or the kidney, accumulate there and spread their alpha-radiation to neighboring cells. The gene code gets altered, the immune system collapses and cancer emerges. In all areas uranium ammunition was used the number of leukemia cases grew up to 40%. But the horror does not end with the death of the patients: He or she passed the altered gene code on to him or her offspring. In the hospitals of Kabul, Basra and Baghdad a disturbing picture is showing. There almost a third of the children are born with genetic defects: The newborns have no eyes, no extremities or carry their internal organs in a pouch on the back. Only now, years after the combat operations, the entirety of the destruction becomes visible – not only in the Iraq. Of 500.000 US-soldiers who fought in the Gulf War of 1991 are 30.000 dead and 320.000 ill. In the last Gulf War 2400 tons of depleted uranium were dropped on Baghdad in one week.


Global catastrophe

3rd April 2003: The battle over Baghdad begins. And it takes its start with a mass bombardment. Uranium bombs hit military bases, the air port and arms depots. 16 days later British scientists detect an increase of the uranium radiation in the atmosphere. They isolate some uranium particles and examine them. The decay rate makes it possible to track the source. Providential winds carry the dust from Baghdad to England.
“Uranium particles don't just vanish off the planet.” says Frieder Wagner, journalist and expert on uranium ammunition. “And it become more and more.”The drops of atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, overground tests like on the Bikini Atoll and the catastrophe in Chernobyl: Every deployment of uranium brings humanity one step close to a global crisis. “Evolution can deal with many diseases” says Wagner. “However the human being has never been designed to ingest radioactive nano-particles.” According to the estimates of renowned scientists in the next 15 to 20 years in Iraq alone seven million people will die due to the effects of uranium ammunition. Wagner: “This is the gravest war crime since the end of the Second World War”. Why does the military use such weapon despite the fact that its own soldiers are affected?


Calculus with lethal consequence?

It is the 10th December of 2009. Barrack Obama enters the podium of the townhall in Oslo to receive the Nobel Peace Price. In his speech the US-President affirms Americas responsibility to abide by the Geneva Convention. Yet 5000 kilometers in south-eastern direction to Oslo his soldiers infringe this international agreement for the protection of the civil population every day. In Afghanistan they make use of atomic weapons which poison millions of people and causes them to suffer fatally illnesses.
This furtive atomic war also takes place in an area were German soldiers are based. Internally it exists an instruction of the German Defensive Ministry to avoid areas where uranium ammunition has been deployed. However, officially it is said uranium ammunition was harmless. The reason: multi-billion claims for damages are at stake. In Afghanistan another consideration could also play a role. Does a potential Taliban come down with cancer at least two other people have to take care of him. “This way a single round binds three Taliban.” says journalist Frieder Wagner.
21 nations are said to have and use uranium ammunition. At the end of 2008 in the people's assembly of the United Nations the possible outlawry of uranium weapons was due to be decided. The motion failed because of the resistance of six nations: Czechia, Netherlands, France, Great Britain, Israel and the USA.

I am open-minded to any insights on the validity/correctness of this article and would like to know how you people asses and/or judge this issue.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Did I read that right? Three hundred and twenty thousand of the five hundred thousand troops who fought in Desert Storm are fatally ill due to radiation poisoning/related illnesses? I find that fantastically high.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Interesting read. I've got no insights to add...

Did I read that right? Three hundred and twenty thousand of the five hundred thousand troops who fought in Desert Storm are fatally ill due to radiation poisoning/related illnesses? I find that fantastically high.

They're just feeling a bit bad.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@Cheezy
You are right and it is wrong. Not fatally ill but "only" ill. Corrected.
Also I suppose that all kind of sicknesses are included in that statistic. It remains an awful high number of ill people considering they were able to serve as soldiers 20 years earlier.

 

[IAM]

If the statistics are legitimate do they compare with Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

If the statistics are legitimate do they compare with Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I don't know what you mean by that.
But what I can tell you is that the Iraqi minister of health has asked Japan for help in dealing with the effects of the radiation.

edit: On second thought I think I do know what you mean. Easy answer: Atomic bombs and weaponry using atomic material are of course not the same thing and hence are hardly comparably the way you seem to imagine.

 

[stormbind]

The same health concerns were raised after Depleted Uranium was used in the original gulf war (in the era of Bush Senior). It is the cheapest hard metal and it is used in armour, as well as in armour-piercing projectiles. DU is the waste product that results from manufacturing Enriched Uranium. Consequently, DU is cheap and in over-supply.

I favour it being allowed for armour, but illegal for amunition because the amunitions release dust when fired - and when they impact - and again they are left scattered to erode on the fields of war. This happens irrespective of whether or not they were immediately helpful. In contrast, the armour is brought home, is painted or covered in other materials, and releases dust only when saving lives.

It's the dust that is really dangerous because it gets into the air where it is inhaled, or absorbed into water where it is consumed by plants and animals in the human food chain. Civilization 5 could help raise awareness by being honest: including DU in Nuclear Power, providing both another UN Resolution and another unit upgrade.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Is there a similar danger of dispersion upon explosion (for the armor)?

 

[JohnRM]

We're destroying the planet? No [expletive deleted]?!

/sarcasm


Get over it. We will render this planet uninhabitable within the next hundred to five hundred years, but by all means people, continue consuming massive quantities of energy and products that require the introduction of all sorts of chemicals, pollution, and other dangerous things into our environment. Keep sucking up that oil so that we have to go to war every decade to grab some more.

 

[stormbind]

@Cheezy,

I imagine so. However, experiencing such an impact suggests that lives may have been saved. Furthermore, when compared to the dust of projectiles, the dust from DU armour is comparatively localised and potentionally contained by layers of other armours (possibly made from paints, plastics and cloths). Consequently, I feel there is difference and that the projectiles are the greater of two evils.

As I recall from past debates on this matter, the significance of DU's density is that it melts other metals on impact - rendering most armour useless.

I'm not an expert. DU armour is certainly used on tanks. I think DU armour is used for personal protection as well.

 

[stormbind]

We're destroying the planet? No [expletive deleted]?!

/sarcasm


Get over it. We will render this planet uninhabitable within the next hundred to five hundred years, but by all means people, continue consuming massive quantities of energy and products that require the introduction of all sorts of chemicals, pollution, and other dangerous things into our environment. Keep sucking up that oil so that we have to go to war every decade to grab some more.

In other words, you might as well give up and kill yourself?

 

[JohnRM]

In other words, you might as well give up and kill yourself?

No reason for that. I won't be alive when it gets really bad. Our children and our grandchildren are the ones that will suffer. Yay, me!

 

[stormbind]

No reason for that. I won't be alive when it gets really bad. Our children and our grandchildren are the ones that will suffer. Yay, me!

I don't want you to be a hated parent and consequently hope your opinion changes before having children

However, we could well destroy this planet sooner than you think. The damage threatens to increase exponentially (my emphasis). For example, a slight warming of the planet can cause the melting of frozen methane pockets, which will in-turn increase the rate of warming. If all the methane pockets melt then we are immediately dead.

Sadly, there is a fear that this irreversible process has already started. If that is true, there won't be another two generations!

 

[JohnRM]

Meh...oh well. I certainly can't twist any arms and make people not be morons.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

The same health concerns were raised after Depleted Uranium was used in the original gulf war (in the era of Bush Senior).

And I wonder why nobody seems to care anymore despite the knowledge of the consequences does increase and with it IMO the reason for freaking strong concerns.

A story for illustration: The in the article quoted journalist Frieder Wagner is an established figure in the sphere of German journalism and has been honored with several awards. He produced documentations for TV the last broadcasted being "Der Dokter und die verstrahlten Kinder von Basra" (The Doctor and the radiated children from Basra). It was once shown on the German channel WDR and received the European Television Award.
His next project was the in 2004 finished documentation "Deadly Dust" being more concerned with depleted uranium in general. The WDR suddenly canceled its cooperation with Wagner, also other channels had no intention to broadcast it, let alone any film distributor for which the documentation initially had been intended for. In general Wagner had suddenly become a red rag.
Today he describes the broadcast of "The Doctor and the radiated children from Basra" as an "accident", an accident no German television wanted to repeat as it seemed. This documentation also never has been shown again and it is said to be beyond limits now.

Now I don't exactly know how it is in other countries (though it does not seem to be a hot topic anywhere in the West), but it is my firm impression that this topic in its entirety is avoided by the press. I am no guy for conspiracy theories, but this is simply my impression. Which is alarming to say the least.

We're destroying the planet? No [expletive deleted]?!

/sarcasm


Get over it. We will render this planet uninhabitable within the next hundred to five hundred years, but by all means people, continue consuming massive quantities of energy and products that require the introduction of all sorts of chemicals, pollution, and other dangerous things into our environment. Keep sucking up that oil so that we have to go to war every decade to grab some more.

The only way we could do that (right now) is to detonate all atomic warheads existing and even than it isn't for sure (I actually doubt it). And this only refers to being inhabitable for humans.
And why the heck do you actually bother to look into politics?
Really JohnRM, there never was and never will be some cosmic mechanism that leads inescapably to total destruction. Very explicit decisions and actions can. And they can also be prevented by very explicit counter-measures.
You could for example educate yourself, try to reduce your energy consumption as much as possible and go out there and try to convince others of your theory of doom through consumption. Right a book. Found an organization.
Good luck

If all the methane pockets melt then we are immediately dead.

Sadly, there is a fear that this irreversible process has already started. If that is true, there won't be another two generations!

Natural phenomena like those are another story.

 

[uppi]

Until that guy show some solid scientific evidence for his numbers he is rightly ignored by the media and banned from TV. As it is , I believe his number are inflated beyond proportion.

1.) The article claims, that these uranium particles are 100 times smaller than a human blood cell, and yet it claims that you can determine the origin by radiometric dating. 20 years with an isotope that has a lifetime of 6.5 billion years? I want to see the error bars for that. Even if the 100 times smaller figures is by volume instead of length, we're talking about counting single atoms.

2) There are scientific studies that claim no significant health risk in populations exposed to depleted uranium

The most detailed ongoing study on the health effects of DU exposure is of 33 friendly fire veterans of the Gulf War, most of whom have embedded DU shrapnel in their bodies that cannot be removed. To date none has developed any abnormalities due to uranium chemical toxicity or radio toxicity, despite showing greatly increased levels of uranium in their urine. However, it is generally accepted that more comprehensive studies on long-term health effects are needed.
United Nation's Environment Programme (UNEP) studies in 2001 (Kosovo), 2002 (Serbia and Montenegro) and 2003 (Bosnia and Herzegovina) - to which IAEA experts contributed - found it was highly unlikely that a reported increase in the risk of cancer in the Balkan regions could be associated with the residues of DU munitions used there during the war in the mid-1990s. It found the probability of significant exposure to local population was very low.

3) The article claims that one fourth of the Iraqi population will die from depleted uranium in the next 20 years. If the risk was anything close to that, the scientific studies mentioned above would have seen something. Unless a it becomes a trendy fashion to eat uranium bullets, there is no way this can happen (And if it's 7 million in the next 20 years we already should have seen like over 1 million deaths due to uranium in the 7 years since the war started and since it was also used during the war 20 years ago, these 7 million deaths should already have occurred).

4) One third of the children have serious birth defects? I don't know but where he gets this number from, but it seems to be pulled out of thin air:
http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/Depleted Uranium_bestanden/DEPLETED URANIUM-2- INCIDENCE.htm
(note the authors: there unlikely to take part in a gigantic American coverup)

Analysis of registered congenital malformation among births in Basrah for the period from 1990 to 1998 was carried out. In general there is an apparent increase in the incidence rate from 1995 upwards. In 1998 such incidence is almost three folds higher than in 1991. To improve statistical efficiency of the data collected and overcome small numbers of cases recorded, the pattern and incidence of congenital malformations are grouped into two periods, 1991 to 1994 and 1995 to 1998. The incidence rate for the first period was 2.5 congenital malformations per 1000 births while the respective figure for the second period is 4.57. Congenital heart diseases, and chromosomal aberrations are reported at a higher frequency during the latter years. Such unusal malformations as phocomelia and icthyosis (which were not reported in 1990 have been recorded later though in small numbers). The frequency of cleft lip and palate follows a similar trend. No apparent trend are observed in the remaining malformations. The above findings indicate clearly that there must be an exposure to a teratogenic factor prior to 1995 most probably radiation emitted from weapons used in the aggression against Iraq.

So while the number is higher than before (which is a legitimate concern against depleted uranium), it's certainly nowhere near one third.


There are risks in using depleted uranium and criticism of its use is certainly legitimate, but there is no need for crackpots like this guy, who try to incite hysteria with hugely inflated numbers.

 

[JohnRM]

The only way we could do that (right now) is to detonate all atomic warheads existing and even than it isn't for sure (I actually doubt it). And this only refers to being inhabitable for humans.
And why the heck do you actually bother to look into politics?
Really JohnRM, there never was and never will be some cosmic mechanism that leads inescapably to total destruction. Very explicit decisions and actions can. And they can also be prevented by very explicit counter-measures.
You could for example educate yourself, try to reduce your energy consumption as much as possible and go out there and try to convince others of your theory of doom through consumption. Right a book. Found an organization.
Good luck

Let me rephrase. We will render the planet uninhabitable to 7 billion-plus humans within 100-500 years.

For the record, I have reduced my consumption significantly below average. My income is right about even with GDP Per Capita and my total consumption amounts to about 21 percent of my income per month average. I can't very well spend much less than that. Most of that spending is on food and housing. It would take roughly 5 of me (or more) to equal one average American. I am not a very good writer, so that is out of the question. Founding an organization is also out of the question, because my solutions are not popular.

 

[stormbind]

Natural phenomena like those are another story.

Its a phenomena that can be triggered by global warming and therefore something we are responsible for!!

A story for illustration..

Yeah, the mainstream television industry will not show that kind of stuff. They tell us that such productions are relics of a bygone age, even though the productions discuss today and tomorrow

My interpretation is that showing people the nature of humanity, has the effect of making humans feel bad about themselves. Doing that is bad for TV ratings. It worked in the age of empires because cinema could show indigenous peoples that audiences might consider to be different to themselves.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

1.) The article claims, that these uranium particles are 100 times smaller than a human blood cell, and yet it claims that you can determine the origin by radiometric dating. 20 years with an isotope that has a lifetime of 6.5 billion years? I want to see the error bars for that. Even if the 100 times smaller figures is by volume instead of length, we're talking about counting single atoms.

I am no expert on the issue of course, but it is in deed possible as it seems.
I found this, were the incident is explained more thoroughly. Interesting also that the private company which is concerned with the task of measuring uranium levels - which is owned by the American oil company Haliburton - tried to cover up the measurements and had to be legally forced to make them available.

2) There are scientific studies that claim no significant health risk in populations exposed to depleted uranium

I am not convinced at all. 33 people, no long-term tests, UD-dust does not even play a role at all in this. And this study is the "most detailed"? What this issue needs is an independent study, which is actually really detailed. I am not confident that the UN can provide that.
I for sure don't think that our government did much in the past to have earned the benefit of the doubt on such an important issue.
Also I personally would like to see a reasonable explanation for all the consequences of recent UD-wars and how they did arose with UD not being in the equation. That would be a pressing need anyway.

3) The article claims that one fourth of the Iraqi population will die from depleted uranium in the next 20 years. If the risk was anything close to that, the scientific studies mentioned above would have seen something. Unless a it becomes a trendy fashion to eat uranium bullets, there is no way this can happen (And if it's 7 million in the next 20 years we already should have seen like over 1 million deaths due to uranium in the 7 years since the war started and since it was also used during the war 20 years ago, these 7 million deaths should already have occurred).

Let's be honest. You have no idea if their is "no way". It is not much more than your gut feeling. I can understand this feeling as the death toll is shocking high, too shocking to be just believed.
But no those deaths should not have already occurred simply because we are talking about two different wars which used to different extends DU. The current Iraq-war involves an actual occupation so it seems much more likely that more DU is used to an significant extent.
Also nobody did take a look at the actual consequences of DU after the first war with the Iraq.
Further on from what I have read it seems those effects need some time to really show all their impact

4) One third of the children have serious birth defects? I don't know but where he gets this number from, but it seems to be pulled out of thin air:
http://www.irak.be/ned/archief/Depleted Uranium_bestanden/DEPLETED URANIUM-2- INCIDENCE.htm
(note the authors: there unlikely to take part in a gigantic American coverup)


So while the number is higher than before (which is a legitimate concern against depleted uranium), it's certainly nowhere near one third.


There are risks in using depleted uranium and criticism of its use is certainly legitimate, but there is no need for crackpots like this guy, who try to incite hysteria with hugely inflated numbers.

Your study does not refer to the same time frame.
I couldn't find an exact share of defections right now but at least this BBC-article from this year.
One quote:

She said that one doctor in the city had compared data about birth defects from before 2003 - when she saw about one case every two months - with the situation now, when, she saw cases every day.

My interpretation is that showing people the nature of humanity, has the effect of making humans feel bad about themselves. Doing that is bad for TV ratings. It worked in the age of empires because cinema could show indigenous peoples that audiences might consider to be different to themselves.

This just makes me think of Nixon. An freaking top-secret document of RAND gets published and is continuously covered in newspapers and on the news which proves how since L. B. Johnson until Nixon all US-Presidents willingly fed the public crap and out-right lied all the time in order to maneuver the country into an on-going war (Vietnam).
And what happens? People forget and reelect Nixon
It is just sad.

 

[Theige]

Many of the statistics in the article are completely absurd.