Depleted uranium found in Florida airport, evacuation ordered

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by projectvxn

 

Perhaps at an airport there would be more of a sensitivity to it.

There is mostly because of regulation when I worked at Louisville International Airport they freaked out over pretty much everything.

Most of the time It was nothing.

edit on 25-7-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

Thanks for input Neo.

I believe same procedures are in place at international docks that handle cargo and passengers. AND WE ALL KNOW HOW CRAZY THE FED CAME BE ABOUT HOME LAND SECURITY

Depleted uranium....Iraq infant deformities.

What goes around comes around.

reply to post by projectvxn


I find your side hard to fathom on this debate. You may recall having seen me on other threads arguing very much from your general side of things. That is to say, people who claim using D.U. ammo has been chemical or radiological warfare are ignorant trolls, with NO understanding of the material or science involved.

I'm not expert myself..and don't take what I say as claiming to be, please. However, as much as I look down at the arguments making it sound like Plutonium in it refined form, fresh from the depths of a reactor? The argument that is's perfectly safe is also perfectly absurd in my opinion. The world efforts to investigate this and the true impact and damage done are incomplete ... but they absolutely have enough to warrant VERY serious questions on this whole thing, in my personal opinion.

We absolutely have enough suspicion, again in my opinion and time reading about this, to stop using it until those concerns are fully hashed out among the nations and authorities directly questioning it.

If it's REALLY that safe, then objectively proving it to a scientific standard everyone but your agenda driven net trolls will accept, shouldn't be a challenge or major delay, should it? I guess it's that lack of just settling the matter that's always bothered me. Why not, if it CAN be settled so easily?

reply to post by MDDoxs


Fortunately industrial DU has a very low level of radiation. It is only slightly above background radiation.. The instruments used by EM personnel is very sensitive. It would need to be to detect shielded nuclear materials.

I understand the conspiracy angle on ATS. But the motto is deny ignorance, not feed ignorance.
In many cases I have seen medical conspiracy theory, DU theory, and other inducing dangerous levels of hysteria.

Vaccination comes to mind.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I never said it was perfectly safe.

Atomized DU can be very dangerous since it is a heavy metal.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I find the DU debate hard to fathom in general when people are exposed to 'more' radiation:

By flying
By talking on cell phones
By sitting in front of an LCD
By microwaving mac n cheese.

In fact people are exposed to sources of radiation on a daily basis, but none get as much demagoguery as DU.

You know, if they had found this and didn't pull the alarms, and have a huge response, then quite a few people would be sitting here screaming about how there was a radioactive source at the airport, with thousands of people nearby, and they did nothing. It's a standard emergency response for a radioactive detection. They bring everyone running, and then determine what it is, how it got there, and how hazardous it is. Better to have all the people required on scene first, then figure out what's going on.

So, the nuclear power industry has found a way to dispose of DU,
they put it in luggage and let the airlines loose it.

reply to post by projectvxn


Okay, fair enough and you didn't say that it was 100% safe in every form. You're right. I generally agree with your points on ATS, so please don't take this as challenging as I sometimes am on points I find disagreement with. I also get the impression by your history and posting over the long term, you may well have handled and worked with things made of this, personally. So...it's with as much curiosity that I bring all this up this way.

It seemed you're saying in it's finished and solid form in a product like ballast weight, bullets or a main tank round, it's safe? That's also what the various points around the world have come to directly argue and challenge?

I'm just a lowly, non-scientific spectator in a tennis match of facts and argument around the world on this topic I admit, I'm woefully under-educated to play like I have expertise in. It's the common sense that's coming by seeing those who do actually know this stuff as second nature, arguing with deep passion from both sides, which gives me more than just 1 moment of pause?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


It's safer in bullet, or ballast, or whatever form. It's not 100% safe, but in finished form you could handle it, toss it around, put it in your room, and it wouldn't have much of an effect on you. It would have some effect, because it is still radioactive, but the alpha particles would be stopped by just about anything (a few sheets of paper stop alpha particles). The gamma particles would be more problematical, but a small exposure wouldn't hurt you in the long term. Stick it under your pillow at night, and it's a different story.

The big problem comes in when it is fired. When it becomes dust, then those radioactive particles, especially the easy to stop ones, can be taken into your lungs. Outside the body, and alpha particle is practically harmless, once it gets into your body then it can start to cause damage.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Industrial DU is safe. As its uses are not military in nature.

If you've ever handled green glass or orange ceramic dinner plates you've eaten off of industrial DU.
Flywheels on certain large vehicles are made of DU, in addition to aircraft applications.

There are many, many other applications of DU that you'd be surprised are in play.

The danger in DU armor and munitions isn't its solid form. It is what happens after it's been atomized. DU doesn't hang around in the air, since it is a heavy metal. The concentrations for ground water would have to be immense to cause any real harm to a population. Much of what they talk about with respect to deformities in Iraq has also been attributed to other war zones in Africa and the ME. The common culprit in all of these conflicts was NOT US involvement or even the use of DU. It was chemical pollutants from the destruction of industrial centers, water treatment plants, lack of electricity, and contamination from human waste.

Not that adding heavy metal poisoning to the mix helps. But I think blaming these tragic events on one thing is misguided and unscientific. It also serves the purpose of conspiracy peddlers who are known for not caring about the finer points of science for specific purposes.

reply to post by Zaphod58


You would have more to worry about in the liver through heavy metal poisoning than radio activity. The levels simply aren't there. Though generally your post is spot on.

reply to post by projectvxn


It's been awhile since I read the sources on DU, so I couldn't remember the levels it put out.

Did anyone ever stop and think as to why it was a problem in Iraq?



In Iraq, we used the stuff on the munitions of our artillary rounds. We shot them out of artillary really fast and really hot. We used them because they could pierce a tank like a hot knife through butter. The side effect was... when it poked a hole in one side of the tank, it also poked a hole through and through to the other side. Everything IN that tank came out of the exit hole. Ever see a loaf of ground beef in tube packages?

The reason a lot of soldiers got sick was because they had to clean that mess up.

This is why...

When you shooting one of those rounds, you're causing a hell of a lot of friction. Tiny particles of DU come off these rounds like sandpaper scratching wood. This stuff it blown to the 4 winds with each shot. Imagine how many rounds we used... More than you just imagined....

So this stuff scatters in the air, and anyone breathing it can have all sorts of problems. Most common were the shakes (which I have.. my hands seldom sit still from tembles) and the runs. Others get mental but like lead poisoning does to the brain, so too does this stuff.

Now you have an idea as to why it was dangerous in Iraq.

A barrel full wont be an issue unless you grind it up and toss it in the air.



PS... By artillary, I mean, Field, Mobile and Tank rounds. DU has a lot of useful properties in war, but it's also deadly if you're not smart about it... It can mess up an area long after the war is over, as it was in this case. To be honest.. there is no "smart" way to use this stuff. It's just really effective at killing... Even indirectly.

reply to post by projectvxn


Thank you for the reply and additional context. I find your argument about the other sources of contamination in Iraq to be very logical and feel a little foolish I hadn't thought of that to give more consideration to. Now that I DO think about it, yes, actually, I do recall seeing some nasty nasty deformities and other human damage across the brush and resource wars raging in Africa from the college courses. Very similar, now that you highlight that factor.

I suppose I would have to ask myself..just what do we expect would happen when industry loses containment and control of pretty much all the worst chemicals and substances we can imagine ..because war basically blows them all over the landscape? Real good points.

reply to post by MDDoxs
Back in the day i was a helicopter mechanic in the NAVY. UD weights was/are used at the tips of rotor-blades for ballast and tracking purposes. Prior to the use of fiberglass blades, vacuum sealed metal blades was the norm. As a result of ordinary stresses the metal blades often lost their vacuum seal and required replacement. This was a squadron of twenty four large H-46 tandem rotor helicopters which each utilized six blades. Man hour report summaries can attest to the time and money wasted manhandling these blades on a daily basis.
Although we we're aware of the UD components and often discussed the possibility of ill effects associated of close handling of the material, the NAVY said little on the subject other than to say it did not pose a physical threat to our health.
Over the years my health has deteriorated prematurely and although i have not determined a relationship of UD sensitivity as a possible factor, maybe i should rethink of the possibility.
Normally I'm not one to assume the possibility of the ole "cause and effect" for my health problems unless i can see a scientific study that shows a high probability associated to a prognosis. However, i remember the old cigarette TV ads of a doctor's recommendation of smoking "his" brand. Also, lets not forget other illustrations.-
Asbestos manufacturers fight to stymie health research of the product.
DuPont and Govt. denial of ill health effects in Agent Orange.
The "wonders" of DDT, only to be placed in the "hazardous use" category and eventually outlawed.
The wide use of Amalgam teeth fillings with mercury vapors.
The use of Cocaine in the ingredients of Coca Cola.
The sugar alternative Aspartame.
Mercury aerosols associated vaccinations.
And the list could go on forever if i chose, who's got the time. However, regardless of personal beliefs in one or many listed above, be aware they are subject to controversy. And history shows cases of people harmed from not only from ignorance, but harmed with the knowledge withheld from the public.
If to look at conspiracy theory and it's prevalence in society, case histories as listed above lend to the "cause and effect" of public attitudes.
I personally is a product of the "show me" state of Missouri. My past years as a lad required proof that a product is a threat. Now I'm the same other than you have to prove a product is worthy of my dollar prior to business. I will not assume safety because someone who shows no credentials say it's safe. This is especially true in these public forums on the net.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by projectvxn

 

Thank you for the reply and additional context. I find your argument about the other sources of contamination in Iraq to be very logical and feel a little foolish I hadn't thought of that to give more consideration to. Now that I DO think about it, yes, actually, I do recall seeing some nasty nasty deformities and other human damage across the brush and resource wars raging in Africa from the college courses. Very similar, now that you highlight that factor.

I suppose I would have to ask myself..just what do we expect would happen when industry loses containment and control of pretty much all the worst chemicals and substances we can imagine ..because war basically blows them all over the landscape? Real good points.

Here's the thing. Industrial pollution has shown to cause all kinds of health issues. From genetic damage to cancer. In war torn countries these kinds of health crises drastically increase. Contamination of underground aquifers, water reclamation, and destruction of water treatment facilities provide the largest source of these chemical and biological pollutants.

I personally do not believe that DU is responsible for the health issues found in Iraq. I DO believe that the war, on the other hand, was instrumental in creating the conditions for these health problems to occur. If these same problems hadn't been seen in past and present conflicts where the US and DU was not involved then I would be more inclined to look at the issue of DU poisoning.

reply to post by dagann


Being a helicopter mechanic and crewchief myself I fully understand the level of health hazards that are present in a hangar let alone a ship at sea.

Between the hydraulic fluid, fuel, lubricants, solvents, CPCs and many, many pollutants aboard a ship I think DU would be the least concerning material.

I've held DU, and I'm still here without major defect (depending on who you talk to..). It's common as a counterweight (and as a penetrator round, of course). You don't want someone walking away with it, and it'd be potentially nasty in an IED. When you find a random barrel lying around, I suppose some caution is in order.

Originally posted by projectvxn

Atomized DU can be very dangerous since it is a heavy metal.

Would such aircraft pose an additional hazard in the event of a crash i.e. atomizing the DU on impact ?

How common is the use of DU in military aircraft?