Talk:Depleted uranium/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Reactors

Various new reactor technologies are looking to burn this stuff as a fuel. I was thinking that this could be included as part of the civilian section but perhaps under a sub title of potential uses. (2-3 lines should do) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.9.109.152 (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree that this could be good, but I have myself failed to find a good source that can be quoted or referred to on this. --DanielAgorander (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Any fast breeder reactor can burn U-238. That's what they do, converting fertile material into fissile at least as fast as they burn fissile material.

—WWoods (talk) 05:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of original image was incorrect

Banned user Nrcprm2026 is not permitted to edit.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This image was removed as original research. The removal of File:Kosovo uranium NATO bombing1999.png as "WP:OR" was incorect, because WP:OR#Original_images states, "original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments," and its references, including [1] and [2], are clearly cited. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC) (i) Those references are inconsistent; (ii) they were not in the image file (added now) (iii) a geographical map of bombing is certainly related to the article of that event, but what do we learn about a material (depleted uranium) by knowing where exactly it landed in Kosovo. Same comment for another map in the article. Materialscientist (talk) 02:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Soldiers who served in the conflict will likely be interested. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Served in the conflict, not for depleted uranium. Wikipedia relies on its modular structure and choosing a proper article is the key. Materialscientist (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Given that the map does pertain to depleted uranium use, it makes the article more comprehensive to include it. Articles are supposed to be comprehensive. We frequently include maps about where substances are mined from; why not where they were used? 71.198.176.22 (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Repetition

"Normal functioning of the kidney, brain, liver, heart, and numerous other systems can be affected by uranium exposure, because in addition to being weakly radioactive, uranium is a toxic metal." This statement is repeated 3 times in the whole page. 87.10.54.32 (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed one, thank you. Two is acceptable because the lead of an article is supposed to summarize it. Materialscientist (talk) 22:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Gulf War syndrome and soldier complaints

Increased rates of immune system disorders and other wide-ranging symptoms, including chronic pain, fatigue and memory loss, have been reported in over one quarter of combat veterans of the 1991 Gulf War.[82] Combustion products from depleted uranium munitions are being considered as one of the potential causes by the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses, as DU was used in 30 mm and smaller caliber machine-gun bullets on a large scale for the first time in the Gulf War.

This is problematic on several levels. For starters, link [82] is dead. The report referred to can be found here (second link). But the bigger problem is that the above statement creates an association between Gulf War Syndrome and DU that the linked report does not make. All it says is that DU was offered up as a possible explanation and the report lists it as one of several potential contributors it would follow up on. In fact, the final report (first link) that supersedes this report and discusses DU at length. It concludes DU was not a major contributor to Gulf War veteran health problems.

I believe a more supportable statement would be:

"Combustion products from depleted uranium munitions was studied by the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses as a potential cause of various health issues reported by veterans, as DU was used in 30 mm and smaller caliber machine-gun bullets on a large scale for the first time in the Gulf War. The Committee concluded DU was likely not a primary cause of reported Gulf War illnesses but recommended follow up long term epidemiological studies."

I have not reviewed the rest of this section in depth yet but noted that many of the references used have also been cited and discussed in the Advisory Committee's report.

== Civilian Ammo ==

Um, I am actually actually interested in use of heavier-than-lead ammunition, for the ballistic properties. I've seen tungston ammunition sold, but I haven't see any discussion about DU ammo for public use. Is it cost prohibitive? Is it banned under anti-armor-piercing rules? Is it banned under anti-incendiary rules? Is it banned under health restrictions? If it is not banned, is it sold to the public? And if the military uses it, why would the public also not get to use it? A couple sentences to address this would be both useful and informative. My previous posting of this was (mistakenly?) removed by talk. I don't know the answers to these questions, and one of the reasons I came to this page was to find them out. 72.207.247.50 (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Not that I feel that this discussion page really should be a place to search for ammo (just go to your local ammo shop and ask them?), the line here is just too amusing: "And if the military uses it, why would the public also not get to use it?" Well, then I want a B81 warhead of my own. If the military use it, why not the public? --DanielAgorander (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Civilian DU ammo would prob'ly be banned federally under anti-incendiary rules, and also banned under anti-armor-piercing rules in states (such as California) that have such rules in place. FWiW 67.170.215.166 (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Everything is illegal in California. But the explicit prohibition at the federal level is at 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(17) under the anti-armor-piercing rules. (As an aside, the "if the military gets to use it" constitutional argument is for "arms", things carried and operated by one person, not WMDs and tanks. I assume you were trolling with that straw-man.)72.207.234.155 (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a good question would be: Is Lead ammunition any worse health wise than DU?137.79.61.251 (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article seems to make an effort to convince the reader that DU is most likely dangerous. This article also puts undo emphasis on one or two country's stock and use of DU munitions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.192.225.7 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 29 April 2010

Then that's a good thing. I demand that NPOV tag be removed.

http://www.truth-out.org/article/depleted-uranium-horror-america unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.136.61.168 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 23 October 2010

"During a three week period of conflict in 2003 in Iraq, 1,000 to 2,000 tonnes of DU munitions were used, mostly in cities.[7]" -This line in it's position at the top has nothing to due with it's proceeding paragraph and is clearly slanted against a particular country. It is also repeated in the Military Applications, Ammunition sub section which is also out of context and points to a biased motive on the part of the editor.

"The actual acute and chronic toxicity of DU is also a point of medical controversy. Multiple studies using cultured cells and laboratory rodents suggest the possibility of leukemogenic, genetic, reproductive, and neurological effects from chronic exposure.[4] A 2005 epidemiology review concluded: "In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU."[8] The World Health Organization states that no consistent risk of reproductive, developmental, or carcinogenic effects have been reported in humans.[9][10] However, the objectivity of this report has been called into question.[11]" -This portion leans heavily on the opinion that Du is toxic. Adding a counterpoint, then immediately refuting is the same as stating only one opinion in the first place. In addition this portion either needs an enhanced focus on the controversy over DU munitions or less focus on the opinion that DU is a health hazard.

Furthermore, the military applications section is almost entirely focused on the United States applications for DU with only 2 small references to other States use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.192.225.7 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 29 April 2010

That's because they're the by far biggest warmongers and DU users in the world. If you don't like that, then write to your congressman. Remove the tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.136.61.168 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 23 October 2010

"The Iranian Government TV news channel Press TV claimed on January 4, 2009, that evidence of depleted uranium exposure has been found in wounds of casualties of the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict.[28]" -This comment is out of place in the Ammunition subsection. The subject of that statement is the possible USE of Du ammo, not that fact that Israel/Palestine may have DU munitions. If it is to be included in the ammunition section the editor needs to explain that this is an indication that one of the two groups in that conflict may possess DU munitions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.192.225.7 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 29 April 2010

Since the body reacts to the chemical nature of a substance I would vote for merging this article with Uranium. PRONIZ (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Read this again.

http://www.truth-out.org/article/depleted-uranium-horror-america —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.136.61.168 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 23 October 2010

Just like to comment on the neutrality issue. I agree that that section is slightly anti-a-certain-country. However, it is not necessarily bias towards any conclusions. By definition, any prolonged above ambient level radiation is harmful to human beings. And the anti-U.S. part, it just shows that not enough other country's information is freely available online; or not enough say.. Russian, French, Chinese, Arabic, Japanese, or any other countries where uranium is extensively used/researched are contributing from those language specific sites. I don't think it's intended to be biased, it simply hasn't enough contrary information placed. Gw2005 (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree that this article is saturated with bias, or at least the appearance of it. The entire article is written like an advocacy piece. I have no knowledge or opinion of the subject of uranium munitions, but the fact that this tries like a used-car salesman to hard-sell me on one particular point of view makes me furious. I want to take the opposite position just out of spite. I'm probably not the only one. Can whoever wrote this tract please move it to Harper's or Slate and put an encyclopedic article here instead? Xezlec (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Your attitude (taking the opposite position out of spite) is probably also shared by those who have been fed the line of bull for decades by the DOD that DU was perfectly safe. It turns out they knew all along it wasn't and have been covering that up. Batvette (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It's time to take the NPOV tag off and stop succumbing to US imperialistic rhetoric and policies even here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.136.61.168 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 23 October 2010

I disagree. The neutrality tag should remain. The article is more about politics and POV than about the depleted uranium isotope. It is full of speculation and fringe studies. It needs a lot of work to become neutral rather than point-counter point-point-counter point... ad-nauseum. PRONIZ (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Industrial uses of DU

I just made a small edit re:the B747 elevators counter balance weights. I have an FAA A&P License and have been schooled and worked on the B747-123 (FTL). I also know that the DC-10/MD-11 uses DU counter balance weights for the Rudder and I believe the elevators. There was an issue re: the Pan Am and Dutch (KLM) B747's that collided on the runway in the canary islands. Seems the DU was sold in Barcelona as white gold. This was in an old AW&S Tech article. Also the Boeing B747 Safety Manual warned that the elevator counter balance weights would emitt radiation if they were scratched or corroded. No reference was given as to how much or other precautions. I suspect that NIOSH will have standards and OSHA will reference them. There should be a material data safety sheet for these items. As a general rule anytime counterweights are used one should suspect DU because of the weight-to-bulk ratio. Bgordski (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Wrong link to German Wikipedia page

The article links to the German Wikipedia page called "Abreicherung", but this is the wrong article. The correct article is "Uranmunition". http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranmunition Please can someone with edit rights fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.18.161 (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No, the link is correct. This here is a page on depleted uranium in general, not limited to its use in munitions. As such, linking the German "Abreicherung" (depletion) page, with its largest section being on depleted uranium, is correct. That section does link Uranmunition (uranium munitions) prominently, so I don't think any information is lost. -- DevSolar (talk) 14:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Merging this article with Uranium?

I am fairly new to wikipedia, so please forgive any errors. I have followed this issue for some time. The scientific literature shows that the hazards of depleted uranium are related to the chemistry of the material. In other words, the fact that the DU is U. For this reason, I would like to propose that this article be merged with Uranium. Could anyone help with the process? PRONIZ (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Merging articles requires agreement among the editors first, and similarity of topics is not a sufficient requirement for merging. I myself would disagree with this idea for several reasons, including (i) both articles are quite bulky, (ii) their quality is quite different, (iii) whereas uranium is quite stable, there are still minor edit wars over depleted uranium. Materialscientist (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I also don't like the idea, as there is a tremendous amount of politics and controversy associated with DU that is just too long for the uranium article. Whatever you want to call the second article, Depleted uranium or Uranium use in projectiles, you have to have the second article. And the uranium article is near the size limit as it is, and can contain only the barest summary of this use for the metal. Please, people: before you propose mergers of long articles just because they seem "kinda the same," read WP:SS for a primer on how WP is constructed and how it grows. SBHarris 00:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you both missed my argument. I wasn't making a statement about the lengths of the articles. Neither did I say they were " "kinda the same" ". Chemical effects of depleted uranium are independent of the isotope of Uranium involved, IE: the number of neutrons. That is leading me to say that an encyclopedia should take this into account. The information attributable to the effect of DU should be found in the U article, while the political controversy related to use in military operations could remain here. Perhaps merge was the wrong thing to propose. What alternative could be suggested?PRONIZ (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, true and false. The chemical effects are similar, but the physical effects are completely different. DU has a completely different half-life and activity level compared with more enriched uranium. This leads to completely different medical effects. Djma12 ^(talk) 00:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The relevant comparison is between DU and natural uranium, which isn't very different (DU has about half the radioactivity of natural uranium, which is so low as to make little difference). The half life of U-235 is also very long, even though shorter than U-238. The difference is such that the radioactivities of the two isotopes isn't significantly different, and medical contamination of the one is treated no differently from the other. In both cases, it's the heavy metal chemistry that is dangerous, not the radiation. SBHarris 03:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Problem is nobody is taking uranium and smashing pieces of it against each other at 1000 mph around population centers and breathing the aerosolized particles. This seems to be the scam behind the DOD's consistent pleading of its safety, in whole form like a soldier sitting next to a pile of ammo boxes saying it's low level radioactive. Turn it into airborne fine particulate and gases it's a real problem as the body ingests it easily. Batvette (talk) 10:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This last post is a clear indicator of my point. Without commenting either way about the other content expressed by Batvette. The impression this editor has, which is expressed by "...nobody is taking uranium and..." is wrong. Depleted uranium is uranium. PRONIZ (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh joy, I just got declared wrong by an editor that now doesn't exist. I'm hurt, my anger has a 4.5 million year half life! ANYway, doesn't DU have a different profile of isotopes than natural uranium? I think so- and as I stated, nobody is aerosolizing natural uranium by smashing it at high speed at objects so I think the two need be separated if talking about their health effects. However I would also like to bring up a sobering reality to those blaming our DU for birth defects in Iraq- Google "tuwaitha looting water containers". Please do, don't reply until you have. Now tell me we are supposed to rush to find blame for birth defects. Bet you all forgot about that.Batvette (talk) 03:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I have Googled "tuwaitha looting water containers," but am unpersuaded that any contamination from Tuwaitha can be connected to the reports of dramatic elevations of congenital malformations among children born after the Battle of Fallujah. I personally don't think that DU's so dramatically teratogenic to account for this increase, but something caused the phenomenon. We need peer-reviewed population studies with radiochemical and other sampling to confirm the wide presence of DU in victims' bodies and/or rule out other causes of the malformations such as dispersal of dioxins from some unknown source (say, one or more electrical transformers having been breached and their insulating oil being either dispersed in the area or placed in the river from which drinking water is taken). The only way to find this out is to find it out.loupgarous (talk) 06:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I had a coworker that served in the first Gulf War and came home with GWS. As a nuclear power worker, I asked if he sat on any Iraqi hardware that had been hit by sabots? Yes. Had he sat and ate meals on any hardware that had been hit by sabots? Yes. Unless the laws of physics are different on a battlefield, it seems to me that he would have ingested alpha and beta particles. I know a sheet of paper will block alpha, but I have found few individuals whose insides are lined with paper. Alpha and beta are only dangerous if ingested, correct? Climb on a tank, touch anything contaminated with DU and unless you wash before eating, you're ingesting the alpha and beta particles that damage the unshielded, live cells. I also worked with Davis Monthan AFB in Tucson, AZ. On one occasion I walked past an aircraft hanger and noticed an A-10 roped off with radiation signs on the magenta and yellow rope. When I asked, they explained that after firing DU rounds at the Goldwater range, the aircraft is considered radioactive until decontaminated. Either DU is a radiological contaminant or not, according to the USAF at DMAFB, it is! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.204.91.172 (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

While I agree 100% with the underlying points expressed above, please note that talk pages of wiki articles are for suggestions and discussions toward improving articles- not to debate the subject itself. (and if were an anecdotal account isn't much for evidence anyhow)I would offer a better way to contribute would be to register a username and start editing articles on subjects such as this where your expertise would be useful. Batvette (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Just one more point to establish some perspective on the contribution of ingested depleted uranium to carcinogenesis and other morbidity in humans: Potassium-40 is the leading source of radioactivity on Earth. Quoting from the Wikipedia article on the subject: "Potassium-40 is the largest source of natural radioactivity in animals and people. An adult human body contains about 160 grams of potassium, of which a small fraction is potassium-40. From the isotope abundance and half-life it can be calculated that this produces about 300,000 disintegrations per minute continuously throughout the life of the body." So three types of beta decay, including positron emission, all of which occur as a result of the radioactive decay of potassium-40, are happening 300,000 times a minute in the body of every human being on Earth. Granted that the uranium isotopes of interest in DU are mostly alpha-emitters, the number of ionizing events in the human body from most cases of casual ingestion of DU after expenditure of munitions in the area is probably smaller than that attributable to naturally-occurring potassium isotopes.loupgarous (talk) 09:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is missing the point. 1) This talk page is for suggestions towards improving the article, not discussing its contents. 2) You're making a couple of misleading statements, which gives the impression that you don't really know the subject. 2a) While Potassium-40 is the main source of radioactivity in a normal human body, it's by far not the main source for natural radiation to a human body (that would be Radon). 2b) DU is a health hazard not (only) due to its radioactivity, but (also) due to its toxicity. Naive comarisons of Bequerel levels simply don't do the subject justice. -- DevSolar (talk) 09:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Your point links excellently to my initial question about merging this article with Uranium. Depleted Uranium is Uranium. The toxicity to a human body is due to the chemical nature of an element. The toxicity of Depleted Uranium is the toxicity of Uranium. That there is little to no evidence that DU is a health hazard because of its radioactivity is a verifiable fact which is ignored by the agenda driven editors of this page. PRONIZ (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with the conclusion you draw from my post above. I'm with Materialscientist and SBHarris on this one: "Uranium" is a high-quality, highly-stable article about the chemical element. "Depleted Uranium" is a highly opinionated article about the use of Uranium in munitions. Merging the two doesn't seem like a good idea to me due to a) bulk, and b) noise. -- DevSolar (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment on Sandia study

I have mentioned this error before --several years ago-- but no correction has been made. The statement is made in the Wikipedia article:

A two year study headed by Sandia National Laboratories' Al Marshall analyzed potential health effects associated with accidental exposure to depleted uranium during the 1991 Gulf War. Marshall's study concluded that the reports of serious health risks from DU exposure are not supported by his analysis and are not supported by veteran medical statistics. The Sandia study was not comprehensive because it considered only the radiological risks of depleted uranium exposure,[37] but not the substantial toxicological[38][39] and reproductive risks.[14]

However, the 2 year study did, indeed, examine reproductive effects and some chemical effects.

Furthermore both chemical effects and reproductive issues were discussed in some detail in a subsequent journal paper:

Gulf war depleted uranium risks Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology 18, 95-108 (January 2008) | doi:10.1038/sj.jes.7500551

Please correct the comment in the Wikipedia article.Acmarshall (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

who is Dr. Keith Baverstock?

Dr. Baverstock is a chemist. Let's remember whether you have a PHD or not if you're not talking in your field you are a layman. Perhaps the section "This report has been criticized by Dr. Keith Baverstock for not including possible long term effects of DU on human body.[13]" can be rewriten and maybe get a reference going to a person in a relevant field. An oncologist for example.Donhoraldo (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

CV and statement here Baverstock's statement to the Belgian Committee on Defence ICBUW (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't dispute his credentials, however I must point out again that he isn't talking in his field. He worked with the WHO on issues involving radiation exposure in populations but he is talking about biological effects, not chemical properties. A quote form a biologist or oncologist would be good, however a far better source like a journal article or the like would be preferred. Right now we've got a talking head not a source.Donhoraldo (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like he was on the UK Medical Research Council for 20 years. 76.254.20.205 (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Uranium is Ubiquitous.

Studies showing the presence of "partially" depleted uranium in the environment and then concluding that this presence indicates the use of depleted uranium weapons is a fringe idea. Uranium is ubiquitous throughout the world. PRONIZ (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

But natural U-235-depleted uranium should not ubiquitous. Except possibly that originating from the Oklo reactor deposits. Anywhere else shows human intervention to have separated the isotopes. SBHarris 00:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No, natural U is mostly U-238. I can find no source that states that finding U-235 indicates, on its own, that there was a human process to separate the isotope. PRONIZ (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course natural uranium is mostly U-238-- nobody said it wasn't. The isotopic abundance ratio today has U-235 at 0.7204% except in special circumstances. Anything LESS than that, is referred to as "depleted." It means "depleted further from an already low level." Since nature doesn't separate uranium isotopes, this % is the fraction left over from the primordial ratios of these isotopes 4.6 billion years ago, when U-235/U-238 was about 0.34, thus U-235 made up about 25.4% of naturally occuring uranium in the primordial cloud, and U-238 made up almost all the rest. Two billion years ago at the time of the Oklo reactor, U-235 made up about 3.66% of the total. Today, it's everywhere 0.72 % except for ores from the Oklo region, and (of course) from uranium which has been depleted of U-235 by man made isotope separate (gas centrifugation, etc). SBHarris 22:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The point is that I could find no source that indicates that finding Uranium in the environment indicates the use of depleted uranium. To imply otherwise is a fringe idea or original research which is why I removed the information citing studies showing the presence of Uranium in the environment. PRONIZ (talk) 16:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Published research indicates the Mesozoic Tethys seaway running from Morrocco eastward to Iraq and beyond has large phosphate deposits in which uranium co-exists in apatite rock. So natural uranium is found in Iraqi rock. However, Sbharris is right that isotopic abundance studies would be useful in determining whether any uranium found in a given area in Iraq is natural or has been artifically depleted. In the case of ordnance-associated depleted uranium, isotopes of uranium may exist which would not be found in natural uranium at all as a result of depleted uranium from spent nuclear reactor fuel rods being intermingled with some DU stocks in the United States. Gamma-ray spectrometry would probably suffice to confirm or deny that.loupgarous (talk) 06:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

DU and 9/11

Thank you User:PRONIZ for removing the speculation wrapped in weasel words ("It is said [...] might have been [...] which may now") about DU being in the airplanes that crashed into the WTC. They were Boeing 767s (see American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175) and the other two that crashed that day were 757s (see American Airlines Flight 77 and United Airlines Flight 93). After a quick Google search, I found [3] which says "Other than with its 747 jets, Boeing never used depleted uranium counterweights in its 767 and 757 jets - the types involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, according to Boeing speaker Heinrich Grossbongardt. (SPIEGEL ONLINE, Sep 14, 2001)" (emphasis added) -- Limulus (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/depleted_uranium.html read this link.some researchers contend that the aircraft used in the September 11 attacks could have hade Depleted Uranium in them. i have cited sources that cover all points of view regarding this issue now its no longer speculation.its factually based.Kh23 (talk) 12:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

DU is not an explosive. As used in airplanes, it is a dense metal. The statement "It is said aeroplanes have Depleted Uranium in them and so the September 11 Attacks and the explosions that occurred and the destruction of the twin towers might have been due to Depleted Uranium." is clearly Original Research and blatant supposition. Unless you have a credible source that verifies this statement, do not add it back to the article. There is already a section about DU in airplanes. PRONIZ (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The first thing I noticed when I read that article is that it clearly says:

“Boeing has never used DU on either the 757 or the 767, and we no longer use it on the 747,” Leslie M. Nichols, product spokesperson for Boeing’s 767, told AFP. “Sometime ago, we switched to tungsten, because it is heavier, more readily available and more cost effective.”

(emphasis added)

Next, I looked up the American Free Press article and (1) I strongly suspect they would not be considered a WP:RELIABLE source (note especially the SPLC and ADL criticisms) (Update: indeed... Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_29#Is_the_American_Free_Press_considered_a_reliable_source.3F -- Limulus (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2011 (UTC))and (2) the author of that article is specifically mentioned: "One of the newspaper's ex-contract reporters, Christopher Bollyn, is sometimes cited for his reporting in the 9/11 Truth Movement." IMHO, if this belongs anywhere on Wikipedia, it is in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article; suggest you run it by their talk page first. -- Limulus (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thats just like saying "I dont like it".Point here is the world must know how Americans have truly suffered and its not the other way round as its made to be. That source is the most reliable source there is.If thats not reliable then you then every newspaper must be unreliable in your view. I can nevr forget the way they said President Bush is crazy and all those things.These sources provide justification for all his actions and show they were provoked on him. DU can become explosive if used in the way it was on September 11.How else could those Twin Towers have collapsed if it wasnt for this reason.Kh23 (talk) 10:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

"How else" Please see the Collapse of the World Trade Center article.

"the most reliable source" If that is, then the claim does not belong in this article

"then every newspaper must be unreliable" Not so; please see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

"the world must know how Americans have truly suffered" Please see the September 11 attacks article

Now, in addition to the reliable source issue discussed above, see Wikipedia:Fringe theories, WP:SYNTHESIS and Wikipedia:No original research

It is said aeroplanes have Depleted Uranium in them and so the September 11 Attacks and the explosions that occurred and the collapse of the twin towers might have been due to Depleted Uranium."

[4] "Aircraft manufactures have for some time utilised Depleted Uranium in the manufacture of aircraft"

[5] "In 1992, a large aircraft containing pieces of depleted uranium crashed"

This is mentioned in the article in the "Trim weights in aircraft" subsection; this only supports the first half of your sentence. Note that the second ref, which dealt with a plane crash, does not say anything about an explosion being caused by the DU.

There are some who say only Boeing 747 aircraft have Depleted Uranium in them while other researchers contend that the Boeing 767 aircraft used in the September 11 Attacks may have also contained depleted uranium counterweights.

[6] "Other than with its 747 jets, Boeing never used depleted uranium counterweights in its 767 and 757 jets"

[7] "Boeing has never used DU on either the 757 or the 767, and we no longer use it on the 747"

Both of your refs explicitly deny your claim!

I cannot in good conscience let this stay in the article. If you feel George W. Bush was unfairly maligned, please check e.g. his article or War on Terror to see if the topic has been dealt with sufficiently. -- Limulus (talk)

I have removed the content added by Kh23; let me explain why.

The first section said: It is said aeroplanes have Depleted Uranium in them and so the September 11 Attacks and the explosions that occurred and the collapse of the twin towers might have been due to Depleted Uranium." It is reference by two sources: 1 and 2. Both 1 & 2 do suggest that some aeroplanes made have depleted uranium in them; however, neither of them mention the 9/11 attacks at all. Thus, the contentious issue remains unsourced.

Finally, I would urge Kh23 to desist in adding the content back into the article. The clear consensus here is that the content should not be in the article - three users have presented coherent arguments as to why this is the case. You may disagree and are entitled to; however, please do not restore the content unless you are able to establish a consensus supporting your view. To disregard this is disruptive; I would request that you respect the currently established consensus unless and until a change in consensus occurs. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You can say KH are the initials of my first and last name and I am not Muslim. What shocks me is how I come to think that Wikipedia and its editors are biased towards Muslims.Always showcase their sufferings and little known facts like presence of Depleted Uranium in Aeroplanes and the possibility that 911 was a Depleted Uranium attack are hushed up and ignored. I see on Wikipedia every Sura that is chapter of Quran has an article on it while all chapters of Bible and Gita never have the honour of having their own articles. This is why Islam is rising and soon poised to overtake Christianity within the next decade I have heard as the largest religion on earth demographic wise. They showcase their sufferings and make it look like grave injustices were made against them while true facts are ignored. There are researchers who say Depleted Uranium counterweights were used in the aeroplanes used in 911 attacks. I feel this must be included in the article as I have strong feeling that 911 was a Depleted Uranium attack.Every fact points to this as the way the towers fell was like they imploded from within like in a chain reaction. Please request Wikipedia to stop the bias towards Muslims and ignoring the sufferings of others like nothing ever happened I dont have the time or energy for debate or to keep undo what other editors say shouldnt be there in the article so this is last time I am putting this back in the article hoping it will remain there.Kh23 (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Bible, please see Books of the Bible which has links to all of them; if you feel that the Bhagavad Gita lacks representation on Wikipedia, you should help expand its content.

Regarding religious demographics, see Religions_by_population#Largest_religions_or_belief_systems_by_number_of_adherents; it lists Christianity as having 2-2.2 Billion adherents, while Islam has 1.3-1.65 Billion

Regarding allegations of bias by Wikipedia editors, I feel that's a bit of a slur against all of us; please do not confuse playing by the rules (which have been pointed out to you) with being unfair to you because you're not getting your way.

Regarding your re-adding of information that has been pointed out to you as having problems, thank you for pledging to stop.

-- Limulus (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Kh, no one mentioned Islam as far as I am aware - I don't know why you have brought it up. I'm sure you have valid reasons for wanting to insert this information into the article but, to be perfectly honest, what you believe about 9/11, Islam, Christianity, the USA, conspiracy theories, the future of Christendom or anything else is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not about what you believe to be right or wrong; it is not even about just what is right. Wikipedia is about what is true that can be verified and deemed important enough to be part of an encyclopedia. For both of these objectives, reliable sources are required. Unless you can provide reliable and impartial sources, we cannot accept your proposals to add to the article. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I note 69.124.232.47 took it out (again) and saved me the trouble, thank you. -- Limulus (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is too long

I propose that a second article, containing some of the content now included here, should be split off to discuss the controversies over use and health effects of DU. This main article ought to focus primarily on "what is depleted uranium," which is a straightforward question. At the moment, a reader with the simple wish to find out what the substance is might have difficulty navigating the article. The "See also" section for this article contains only one article, "Environmental issues with war." Link(s) to the DU Controversy article should be placed there. Dratman (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The article is over 85 KB; as per WP:SIZERULE, it probably should be split, yes. -- Limulus (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

New review of military utility

We've just published a new paper on the claimed utility of DU in large calibre KE rounds, it's available here: http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/overstating-the-case-an-analysis-of-the-utility-of it seems like a timely addition as according to ‘NATO Tanks Aim at Wider Target Set with Smoothbore Ammunition’. International Defence Review (January 19, 2012) the US has just started development of a non-DU 120mm KE round, not something we expected to see. For the military buffs and DU nerds, the utility paper also has a historical case study of the UK's CHARM ammunition which explains how they have ended up with a bespoke, non-NATO standard, non-interoperable DU round. A major study on UK DU policy will be published in a month or so, will link it here. ICBUW (talk) 12:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)  

Doug Rokke

I can't find any evidence that corroborates Doug Rokke arguments or "suspicions" that Depleted Uranium is being added to a wide variety of munitions. Or that any of what he says is even true. The sources he cites are just plain ridicules, he cites photographic proof but provides no photos.

Does anyone have a actual list of what weapons have DU in them? Military designation and such?

I think there should be an article on his work if hes such a reliable professional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.8.67.109 (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

For a not exhaustive but relatively complete list of weapons and platforms that utilise DU, check: http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/i/85.html ICBUW (talk) 10:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Doug Rokke is a lunatic crank similar to Helen Caldicott and Chris Busby. I have no idea why is he even cited, he has no credibility at all. --Tweenk (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Reference #10 is pseudoscience

Closer investigation of reference #10 shows that it is not a reliable source. It is mostly based on speculation, gray literature, anecdotes and data from NGOs and activists with a vested interest. The section "Socorro case study" is an example. The text is liberally sprinkled with citations to non-credible sources such as Helen Caldicott, Chris Busby and newspaper reports. Among the legitimate papers about humans that I was able to check, none seem to support the review's conclusion. There is confusion between radiotoxicity and chemical toxicity, and an implicit claim that birth defects are due to radiotoxicity of DU, which is just implausible. The review mentions Busby's second event theory, long ago disproved by evidence, which is a huge red flag. It also includes completely irrelevant data, such as investigations of miners exposed to high concentrations of radon.

I think this reference, and all statements using it as a source, should be removed. --Tweenk (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Since this assessment was not contested, I have removed the reference. The article in question is available here: [8] --Tweenk (talk) 18:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols

Tweenk. It does not look like pseudoscience to me. I undid your changes. See diff. Maybe the emphasis placed on the article can be changed, but not its total removal from Wikipedia. The article has 74 references. I also note your user page points out your bias: "Highly pro-nuclear". That's fine, as long as you respect WP:NPOV by not removing relevant referenced info from Wikipedia.

I also suggest naming the article in question in your first post in a new talk section. The original title, "Reference #10 is pseudoscience", of this talk section is vague, and the reference numbers change whenever references are added or moved around. And you did not name or link to the article until today, over a year after your first post. I added a subheading naming the article while replying now.

Here is the article:

Hindin, R.; et al. (2005). "Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective". Environmental Health. 4 (1): 17. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-4-17. PMC 1242351. PMID 16124873. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) --Timeshifter (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The number of references is irrelevant, because those references do not support what the article is trying to say. It is basically a piece of shameless propaganda. Here is one example:

"Still, large quantities of DU and/or radioactive decay products and other radioactive impurities can lead to substantial external exposure. A Geiger counter measurement by a correspondent in the recent Iraq war show that radiation emitting from a DU bullet fragment registered nearly 1000 – 1900 times the normal background radiation level. A three-foot long DU fragment from a 12 mm tank shell registered radiation 1300 times the background level. A DU tank found by the U.S Army radiological team emitted 260 – 270 millirads of radiation per hour compared to the safety limit of 100 millirads per year. A pile of jet-black dust registered a count of 9839 emissions in one minute, a level more than 300 times the average background level [6]."

All of this is cited to a popular press article, and the measurements are given in completely arbitrary units. This paragraph has nothing to do with the issue being reviewed and serves only to imply that the teratogenicity of depleted uranium is caused by its radioactivity, which as I said earlier is implausible. Even the article itself says a little later:

"From their maternal animal exposure studies the members of Domingo's group concluded that it was chemical toxicity, not radiation that resulted in teratogenicity"

Another example:

"While discussion is beyond the scope of this paper, the "second event" theory [72], and the "bystander effect" exhibited by low level radiation [73,74] are, newly, the basis for serious re-consideration of certain propositions previously much more widely held as true."

Reference #72 basically says that the second event theory is totally bogus pseudoscience, yet the review cites #72 as if it actually supported second event theory. Yet another:

" Au et al. looked at non-smokers who resided near uranium mining or milling sites in Texas, but had not worked in the uranium industry [32,33]. They found that residents living near the uranium mining and milling sites had higher frequencies than controls of aberrant cells, chromosome deletions and chromosomal aberrations."

Reference #33 is misleadingly summarized, its abstract says: "We found that individuals who resided near uranium mining operations had a higher mean frequency of cells with chromosome aberrations and higher deletion frequency but lower dicentric frequency than the reference group, although the difference was not statistically significant."

The sections "Kuwaiti Congenital Heart Disease Study" and especially "Shiprock Uranium Mining Area Study" have almost nothing to do with depleted uranium as used in munitions.

This part is absolutely unacceptable, since media reports and activist propaganda have no place in a scientific review:

"There are numerous references in the news media regarding both i) an excess of birth defects and ii) the occurrence of unusual birth defects among infants born after 1991 to returning Gulf War veterans and to residents in the area of Iraq exposed to DU munitions in the war (...) Japanese peace activists have also produced a volume of searing photographs of damaged children [60]."

The references include: Depleted Uranium Education Project, an anti-nuclear group; Helen Caldicott, an anti-nuclear campaigner; Rural Alliance for Military Accountability, an advocacy group; a non-scientific book called "Uranium Projectiles: Severely Maimed Soldiers, Deformed Babies, Dying Children", promoted mainly on conspiracy theory websites; Covert Action Quarterly, a political magazine; and popular press articles in LIFE, Guardian, Christian Science Monitor and Chugoku Shimbun. There is also a reference to a website that promotes the WHO-IAEA conspiracy (#71).

I don't see how you can defend this pseudo-review. --Tweenk (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time to edit this article, nor for long discussion, and so others will have to discuss this with you. In your comment I see numerous flaws in your logic and conclusions. Please do not change or delete the info and reference in the article until more discussion occurs. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Misleading wording?

The wording in this article appears to be misleading, however I could just be a word choice used to simplify the article. It says in the "health considerations" section that basically, improperly handled uranium is dangerous to human health. This is widely known to be fact. However, this article is about depleted uranium. From what I know of this subject, depleted uranium is far different than normal uranium. It would be somewhat similar to comparing oxygen to ozone and saying oxygen is bad cause of the negative "health considerations" of ozone. Balance of paradox (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, depleted uranium is very much like normal uranium, give or take 0.2% or so of uranium-235, so it's more like comparing carbon-12 dioxide with carbon-14 dioxide. A uranyl nitrate solution made from fresh natural U is no more healthy than a similar strength solution made from depleted U. The contentious issue is the health effects of U metal combustion/dispersion products after it's been in a fire or fired as as a cannon round - the suggestion (rightly or wrongly) being that they get places in the body other forms of U cannot reach . U metal munitions happen to be 'depleted U' because there's a lot of the stuff lying around from the production of enriched U for other purposes. It's the use of the isotopics of the projectile in the standard phrase for the issue that's the misleading wording , especially when it leads to people thinking that it's the depletion that makes depleted U a bad thing. Regards Rjccumbria (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The article should mention the depleted uranium reactor

The article should mention the depleted uranium reactor called the travelling wave reactor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.2.34 (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Commenter is talking about this: Traveling wave reactor. I have not studied this, and I am only providing the wikilink to facilitate things. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Added it to external links. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

New DU reports

Hi all, thought these might be of interest. Together with our partners we have published three new reports on DU topics. There will likely be some useful materials for sections of the article. *Precaution in Practice - challenging the acceptability of depleted uranium weapons: A report for policy-makers and campaigners which judges the acceptability of DU weapons by utilising the structure of common interpretations of the precautionary principle. In doing so it asks whether a precautionary approach should be applied to DU and whether its use could ever be compatible with precautionary values.

• Managing Acceptability: UK policy on depleted uranium: Using declassified material, Managing Acceptability provides a historical review of the methods that the UK government has used in seeking to maintain the public acceptability of DU munitions, having recognised very early on in their development that public opposition to the use of DU in conventional weapons would be significant.
• Hazard Aware - Lessons learned from military field manuals on depleted uranium and how to move forward for civilian protection norms.: Hazard Aware analyses the precautionary measures adopted by militaries to reduce their troops' exposure to DU munitions and asks whether these could form the basis for civilian protection norms.
• Will also update the main page with the results of the fourth UN General Assembly resolution on DU, which passed by 155-27-4 in December 2012.
• In a State of Uncertainty: impact and implications of the use of depleted uranium in Iraq. seeks to document the extent of Iraq's DU problem 10 years after its second use in 2003. Combining fieldwork, interviews with Iraqi officials and military sources, the report documents the extent of DU use in civilian areas and against non-armoured targets, the difficulties faced by the Iraqi authorities in managing contamination and the risks still posed to Iraqi civilians working in the scrap metal trade.
• Incidentally, you might also be interested in a new research project that we have launched http://www.toxicremnantsofwar.info/ which seeks to take a assess a wider range of toxic military substances whose use may result in an environmental and humanitarian legacy.
• A discussion paper from the project Toxic Harm: humanitarian and environmental concerns from military contamination. has just been published, broader in scope than just DU but representing a growing trend in the assessment of conflict toxics. ICBUW (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

New secondary literature review with full text

Shelleh, H.H. (2012) "Depleted Uranium: Is it potentially involved in the recent upsurge of malignancies in populations exposed to war dust?" Saudi Medical Journal 33(5):483-8 PMID 22588807. 71.215.95.182 (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This article claims that the children with malformations depicted on photos (taken from public photo sharing websites rather than article authors) have been "affected with radiation", suggesting that DU can cause radiological effects, which is totally bogus. It also has Helen Caldicott as the first reference and uses unprofessional, very emotional language. This is just another junk science-laden political advocacy piece rather than a serious scientific article.

To clear up any doubts, I definitely do not like U.S. foreign policy and I'm not attempting to defend it with the above assessment. --Tweenk (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't like the language; I don't like Helen Caldicott—such statements are of the variety called ad hominem. They are fallacious, and can—indeed, must be ignored. The completeness of their unacceptability is not reduced even the smallest bit by the statement I definitely do not like U.S. foreign policy. LudicrousTripe (talk) 21:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Pilger

Where is the Wikipedia policy that a world-renowned journalist is not RS? Please do not remove him again unless you have it. LudicrousTripe (talk) 11:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

WHO factsheet

The 2003 WHO factsheet was removed with the edit summary "You are citing a dated and unreliable report." No source was given to support the edit summary, and even if verified it seems to me that we should still mention the 2003 factsheet and related WHO reports alongside the more recent research. @Epipelagic: thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't remove the 2003 WHO factsheet! What I removed were duplicate citations to a WHO report titled "Depleted uranium". Both citations used dead-end links. The only current WHO report with that title is this 2001 report. The report itself states:

This document is not issued to the general public and all rights are reserved by the World Health Organization. The document may not be reviewed, abstracted, quoted, reproduced or translated, in part or in whole, without the prior written permission of WHO.

The report was in other ways highly contentious and prompted the following article:

• Dyer O (2006) "WHO suppressed evidence on effects of depleted uranium, expert says". British Medical Journal, 333 (7576): 990. doi:10.1136/bmj.39027.603264.DB Full text

There are a number of much more recent reviews which the Wikipedia article on depleted uranium fails to mention. Among these are:

• Arzuaga X, Rieth S H, Bathija A and Cooper G S (2010) "Renal effects of exposure to natural and depleted uranium: a review of the epidemiologic and experimental data". Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B, 13 (7–8): 527–545. doi:10.1080/10937404.2010.509015
• Briner W (2010) "The toxicity of depleted uranium". International journal of environmental research and public health, 7 (1): 303–313. doi:10.3390/ijerph7010303 Full text
• Katz S A (2014) "The chemistry and toxicology of depleted uranium". Toxics, 2 (1): 50–78. doi:10.3390/toxics201005 Full text
• Levy B S and Sidel V W (2013) "Adverse health consequences of the Iraq War". The Lancet, 381 (9870): 949–958. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60254-8 (Unofficial full text)

If the lead is going to summarise current thinking on the toxicity of depleted uranium it should refer to recent reviews, and not to a dated and controversial WHO report. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, it seems that WHO have pulled their 2003 factsheet. You may have found a copy on the Wayback Machine, but that doesn't mean that it is supported any more by WHO. Another reason for not relying on dated information. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Depleted uranium produces thorium and protactinium

User:VQuakr, I have a question for you. You reverted my edit in which I added a footnote explaining why DU produces thorium-234 and protactinium-234 within a month or so. Do you doubt that what I say is true? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It simply needs a source. See WP:BURDEN and WP:SYN. VQuakr (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

It needs more than a source. To have the slightest bit of significance, it needs the suspension of the universal rules of physics. DU is predominately U238 which has an extremely long half-life (4.5 billion years!) which means it is only weakly radioactive, and only extremely small amounts of decay products are produced. And the minute amounts of decay products are alpha and beta particle producers, emitting particles that have very limited ability to penetrate tissue.

Eric needs to read some physics and chemistry textbooks and stop using scientifically illiterate sources for information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.218.37 (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

71.217.218.37, you say "... particles that have very limited ability to penetrate tissue", well yes they don't penetrate the epidermis, the outer dead layer of skin cells, however if ingested, breathed in, or enter through a wound, then the radiation emitter is in direct contact with living cells, and thus dangerous. GangofOne (talk) 09:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Only if there is a significant number of them. It takes hundreds of becquerels, at least, to do significant damage to a cell, and damage to a considerable number of cells to be significant to an organism. Also, time is of the essence - it has to happen faster then the bodies healing mechanisms can handle. See the analysis above in the challenge about uranium particles.

That thorium and protactinium may be noticeable to scientific instruments, but unless a body is literally flooded with U-238, insufficient quantities of them will be generated to matter over a lifetime.SkoreKeep (talk) 04:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Biological half-life

lede states

The [[biological half-life]] (the average time it takes for the human body to eliminate half the amount in the body) for uranium is about 15 days.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/biohalf.html#c2 |title= Biological Half Lives |author= Georgia State University }}</ref>

Surely there cannot be a single half-life applicable to all chemical forms and (for inhaled insoluble particles) all particle sizes? I would imagine (and if pressed might recall) that soluble uranyl compounds are cleared from the system much quicker than finely divided insoluble oxides Rjccumbria (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The scientific approach

We have to accept that birth defects are high in Fallujah. There is controversy over whether DU weapons were used. It seems that the Abrams tank was present, and that carries DU shells, so it is possible that they were fired. The controversy can be settled by a detailed radio/chemical survey, since the clean-up that is alleged to have taken place (see below) will not have been 100% effective.Doc Richard (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No word yet of detailed radio/chemical survey? --Timeshifter (talk) 10:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a recent article quote (emphasis added):

On the reports of an increase in cancers and birth defects in Fallujah, he noted that while civil society had suggested a link between them and exposure to depleted uranium, UN agencies such as IAEA, WHO and UNEP have all claimed that it is impossible to draw definitive conclusions. However he pointed out that it is important that all three organisations urge caution over the potential for unforeseen consequences to the use of the weapons. UNEP in particular has noted that there is uncertainty over the possible effects of DU in groundwater. He hoped that a new WHO study may add extra information to the debate.

It is from this article: "Norwegian Foreign Minister makes statement on depleted uranium." 9 December 2010. By ICBUW.

Any info on the WHO study? --Timeshifter (talk) 18:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Still in process I believe, they are also due to publish an updated health review of DU at some juncture, hopefully this one will fully reference all the studies into its toxicity, something missing from previous statements. ICBUW (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)ICBUW

This is postured as "scientific approach" - we do not have to accept that birth defects are high in Fallujah - we just have to say that such a claim has been made and that it has been documented by photos and videos. None of the photos or videos really show what possibly caused the birth defects and no mention is made of any possibility of close intermarriage that is common in Iraq. Any genuine expert who has been asked about this, including Iraqis who have not got political reasons to make their claims, say that this plus nutrition and quality of health care are the most likely reasons for any alleged "spike in birth defects". The M1A1 tank was used in small numbers during the two 2004 battles of Fallujah. Those tanks were not armed with depleted uranium armor piercing penetrators because those rounds are ineffective against dug in and barricaded insurgents fighting house by house and block by block. DU is effective only against other tanks and all it does is punch small holes in anything else. The tank's primary ordnance was the high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) round because it is effective against buildings, bunkers, trucks and cars, etc, in addition to somewhat effective against a tank. Richard Lowry extensively researched the battles of Fallujah for his book. He interviewed a large number of participants and he read numerous reports and he explicity asked a number of the interviewees about depleted uranium. He found that DU was not used in Fallujah. The heavy emphasis on DU in Fallujah thus should make people ask how much of the previous claims about DU's supposed effects by Saddam Hussein's propagandists were correct either. There is ample scientific evidence that the propaganda was propaganda and not fact, but that seems to be being ignored by posters such as Doc Richard who posits that he is discussing a "scientific approach" - I would like to know what happened to my prior comment. I do not know that much about how to edit Wikipedia - I only know that this particular article and even its talk page are dominated by what I have come to call during the course of my six years of research as the anti-depleted uranium crusade. They have no intention of letting fact stand on these pages and that defeats the purpose of the Wikipedia.

Roger DUStory-owner@yahoogroups.com75.101.83.227 (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Your other comment was moved to the bottom of the next section. Please register a user name. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

DU was not used in Fallujah. There was very intense house to house fighting and tanks were heavily used but they did not use DU because they had no room to carry something that they would never fire. They would never fire a DU sabot round for two reasons; first, there were no enemy tanks and no expectation of meeting an enemy tank and second; firing a DU sabot round in close in fighting presented a danger to the infantry soldiers who were less than a kilometer down range from the tank's gun. You can read an excellent paper by a Marine Tank Company Commander who was there at http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/tank/tirefs/bodischemail.pdf

"Ammo/Weapons: MPAT-OR was not really used too much during clearing operations as it tended to make a smaller breach and would often penetrate through several buildings. In this environment where friendly units are everywhere, geometry of fires often determine round selection. Although my 3rd Plt Cmdr didn't necessarily have this same experience. MPAT-OR in any case was designed to reduce rubble and we tried to use all of this ammo up front at the beginning of the attack, reducing the jersey and hesco barriers that blocked our avenues of approach. HEAT still proved to be better for those types of targets with regular MPAT effective as well. Remember the word about the HEAT round needs at least 30m to arm when leaving the guntube? Well many of my tankers due to the nature of the city were forced to engage at distances even closer than that, and for nearly all engagements less than 30m, HEAT still seemed quite effective and proved to have a lot of killing power (combination of the explosive punch and overpressure). Nearly all engagements throughout the operation were below 200m and section volleys were employed when practical to achieve as much shock effect as possible. All battlesights were set for 200m. We thought we might get the APERs round (this would definantly have been useful). This round has over 1000 tungsten steel balls and is designed to take out entire squads of enemy formations with 1 round. It is essentially a 120mm shotgun shell. The amount of ammo we have fired since the operation kicked off is staggering and continues to climb. My company has fired close to 1600 main gun rounds, over 121,000 7.62mm, and over 49,000 caliber 50 rounds. "

He further writes at http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/tank/tirefs/tismartpack.pdf

"Ammunition: The current selection of main gun ammo consists of 120mm HEAT, MPAT (ground mode), HE-OR-T (XM908 Obstacle Reducing Round), and SABOT. SABOT is an armor-defeating round and less useful in the MOUT environment. HEAT ammunition will open a large hole in reinforced concrete or masonry structures, far larger than MPAT or MPAT-OR (XM908). Both MPAT and MPAT-OR offer great penetration. HEAT ammunition arms at approximately 60 feet from the gun muzzle. It loses most of its effectiveness against urban targets at ranges of less than 60 feet. MPAT and MPAT-OR rounds arm approximately 100 feet from the muzzle end of the gun. Because of the shape and metal components of the projectiles, however, this ammunition remains effective at ranges of less than 100 feet. Sabot petals, including those on MPAT and MPAT-OR, endanger accompanying dismounted infantry. They create a hazard area extending 70 meters on either side of the gun-target line out to a range of 1 kilometer."

HEAT - High Explosive Anti-Tank - this was his preferred round even though it required a minimum of 30 meters to properly arm the explosive war head MPAT-OR - Multi-Purpose Anti-Tank Obstacle Reducing

Each of the types of 120mm rounds fired by the M1A1 Abrams Tank main gun is discussed extensively here http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/cv/weapon/M256.html

The sabot armor piercing rounds are the ones with DU in them - you can see that they are only effective against tanks. When you are not facing tanks, you do not even load up your tanks with DU because then you run out of the HEAT ammunition that you need.

We do not have to accept that birth defects are high. We have to accept that claims have been made that birth defects are high and that some of these children have been paraded before TV cameras. No information has been provided that supports the conclusion that there are large numbers of birth defects and no information has been provided regarding other possible causes such as close intermarriage, nutrition and stress.208.106.32.139 (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

See section below about A-10 Warthogs used in Fallujah. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The initial supposition is not true. The maker of this statement should make it possible to contact them so that it can be discussed further. DUSTory dash owner at yahoo groups dot com. The Iraqi report did not show an "increase" in birth defects in Fallujah. The tanks that fought at Fallujah had no room useless ammunition. The DU penetrator sabot round (it is not a shell - shells are hollow, contain explosive, and explode - DU penetrators are solid metal rods fired at high velocity and do not explode). DU was not only useless because it could not destroy walls or barricades, sabot ammunition is dangerous to infanty on the sides of the tank out to one kilometer. All of the tanks that fought in Fallujah had to reload ammunition and they primarily used High Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) rounds since those did blow large holes in walls and barricades. These false claims about Fallujah should be looked at as confirmation that the claims about Basrah from the Gulf War were also false because the same claims have been made about Fallujah (just because there were major battles there) as there were about Basrah. Write me, I will reply.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.32.139 (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

See section below about A-10 Warthog planes used in Fallujah. Back then they used depleted uranium rounds. See A-10 Thunderbolt Aircraft: "Of all the US military platforms that fire DU, the A-10 is responsible for the greatest proportion of DU fired." --Timeshifter (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Huge rise in birth defects and early life cancers in Falluja

I don't have the time to read enough of the relevant articles, and to integrate the info well into the Wikipedia article. So I thought I'd do a little bit of referencing and summarizing now, and maybe others can help out further. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DEPLETED URANIUM - THIS POSTING HAS GONE FROM QUESTIONABLY NEUTRAL TO PURELY ACTIVIST - DEPLETED URANIUM WAS NOT USED IN FALLUJAH - QUITE SIMPLY, THERE WERE NO ENEMY TANKS IN EITHER OF THE TWO 2004 BATTLES AND THERE WERE NO TANK BATTLES IN 2003 - DU IS ONLY USED AGAINST TANKS. IT IS PRETTY MUCH USELESS AGAINST ALL OTHER TYPES OF TARGETS. ONE MARINE TANKER WHO I CORRESPONDED WITH SAID THAT HE HAD NEVER FIRED A SABOT ROUND (THE REAL TERM FOR THE DU PENETRATOR ROUND) IN ANY OF HIS FOUR TOURS IN IRAQ. THE MAIN PAGE HAS A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF FALSE INFORMATION AND THIS ENTIRE SUBJECT SHOULD BE DELETED FROM WIKIPEDIA IF IT IS NOT GOING TO BE BASED ON OBJECTIVE SCIENCE AND CONTROLLED BY ACTIVSTS SUCH AS MEMBERS OF THE FALSELY NAMED INTERNATIONAL COALITION TO BAN URANIUM WEAPONS (ICBUW) THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "URANIUM WEAPON". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.83.227 (talk) 09:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't the vast majority of DU ordnance fired in 1991 and 2003 in the form of 30mm rounds from Bradleys and Apaches, with less than a few hundred tank sabots in both years? Dan Fahey published a total of all the different types of ordnance, and 30mm rounds were definetly on top. 208.54.14.26 (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to shout, and it is frowned upon on Wikipedia talk pages. See WP:TALK. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The Bush supporter has flipped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.124.143.83 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 1 February 2015‎

Huge rise in birth defects in Falluja. By Martin Chulov in Falluja. 13 November 2009. The Guardian.

Doctors in Iraq's war-ravaged enclave of Falluja are dealing with up to 15 times as many chronic deformities in infants, compared to a year ago, and a spike in early life cancers that may be linked to toxic materials left over from the fighting. The extraordinary rise in birth defects has crystallised over recent months as specialists working in Falluja's over-stretched health system have started compiling detailed clinical records of all babies born.

Deformed babies in Fallujah / Iraq Letter to the United Nations. 14 October, 2009. U.N. Observer and International Report. The article was written by:

• Dr Nawal Majeed Al-Sammarai (Iraq Minister of Women's Affairs 2006-2009).
• Dr. David Halpin FRCS (Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgeon).
• Malak Hamdan M. Eng in Chemical and Bioprocess Engineering.
• Dr Chris Burns-Cox MD FRCP.
• Dr. Haithem Alshaibani (Environmental Sciences).
• Yasmin Alibhai-Brown (Author and Journalist).
• Nicholas Wood MA, RIBA, FRGS.

The article was addressed to Dr. Ali Abdussalam Treki, who is the President of the Sixty-fourth Session of the United Nations General Assembly.

In September 2009, Fallujah General Hospital had 170 new born babies, 24% of whom were dead within the first seven days, a staggering 75% of the dead babies were classified as deformed. This can be compared with data from the month of August in 2002 where there were 530 new born babies of whom six were dead within the first seven days and only one birth defect was reported.

More info:

• http://www.veteranstoday.com/?s=falluja+uranium
• http://www.google.com/search?q=falluja+birth+defects
• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=falluja+birth+defects
• http://news.google.com/news?q=falluja+birth+defects
• http://books.google.com/books?q=falluja+birth+defects

--Timeshifter (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is a working link to the above-mentioned article "Deformed babies in Fallujah / Iraq Letter to the United Nations":

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=58926

Here is an article discussing it: Toxic munitions 'may be cause' of baby deaths and deformities in Fallujah. 15 November 2009. By David Randall. The Independent. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, "No studies that have evaluated birth outcomes and birth defects among Gulf War veterans and their children have assessed whether there is any connection between reproductive outcomes and uranium exposure in the Gulf War." -- p. 96 (PDF p. 105) of this November, 2008 U.S. Veterans Administration report. 99.56.138.51 (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. 2 different wars. 2 different pools of people. The mostly-male U.S. combat soldiers of the Gulf War. Versus another war and the female residents of Falluja and their children. Reproductive outcomes and uranium exposure are more likely to show correlations in the second war. Because of the direct effects of radiation on Falluja females, their germ cells, their fetuses, and their infants. --Timeshifter (talk) 06:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) A BBC article I heard on the radio today:

Birth defects 'have risen since US Falluja operation'. By John Simpson, BBC World Affairs Editor. 4 March 2010. BBC News.

A BBC investigation in Iraq has confirmed a disturbingly high number of birth defects among children in the town of Fallujah. ... I was told they were scared to speak because the Iraqi government did not want to create trouble for the Americans. The official line is that Falluja has only two or three cases of birth defects a year more than normal. But, in the children's ward, I spoke to a paediatrician who told me he saw as many as two or three cases a day, mainly cardiac defects. That would mean that this medium-sized town has some 1,000 cases of birth defects a year. Every doctor, and every parent I spoke to there, believed the problem was the highly sophisticated weapons the US troops used against Falluja six years ago. The rubble from the damaged buildings was bulldozed into the river - and people in Falluja have got their drinking water from there ever since. I went to a house where all three young children were suffering from paralysis or brain damage. A man who heard I was there brought his daughter to show me - she had six fingers on each hand, and six toes on each foot, and suffered from several serious diseases.

--Timeshifter (talk) 06:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not seeing sources that link the birth defects in Falluja to a documented DU contamination problem. The US ammunition with high DU content was not to my knowledge commonly used in the Falluja battles. If there are DU contamination reports for that area with documented elevated uranium levels that would tie it all together, however.

The reports allege such contamination, but aren't saying specifically what elevated uranium levels were found where.

This testing is easy and straightforwards, and necessary to properly ascribe what problems happen to what people. There are a wide variety of toxins released in warfare, depending on what's fired and what burns and so forth. Allegations here of DU contamination related health effects need to include credible sources that DU is present in the area the health effects are being noted.

That there are health problems is evident from the reports, but it has to be DU related to include it here.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have much time to invest in this. It seems that scientific epidemiological investigation and reporting is needed. My impression from minimal study is that it is being blocked. It would be simple enough to run a lot of tests of the soil, dust, air, and water sources in many locations in the area to determine the various contaminants. If some reliable sources could be found concerning weaponry and ammunition used, that could be cited. Soldier testimonies, etc.. Falluja was the scene of very intense fighting multiple times. I have no doubt everything was thrown at it. I think some of the mainstream media is only now getting pressured enough to investigate. --Timeshifter (talk) 04:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"Everything being thrown at it" is not useful - There were no Iraqi insurgent tanks to shoot long-rod 120mm tank gun DU rounds at (though, rarely, those are used against bunkers and so forth, and tanks were part of the fighting at times). And I don't think US Air Force A-10 aircraft were used for close air support, with their DU containing 30mm cannon rounds.

This is not a claim that it wasn't used there at all. But the type of fighting was not the type of fighting you would expect DU contamination from, and the weapons largely in use were not the types you'd expect DU contamination from.

The Iraqis there think they have DU health effects, but what's come out / been presented is health effects, not health effects + confirmed uranium in the environment. They believe what they're seeing, and medical statistics seem suspicious that there's a cluster of something, but them believing it to be DU and it actually being DU versus some other unrelated toxin is a very different story.

Anyone in the press, or any doctor or resident there, could send environmental samples off to independent labs for analysis and confirmation or refutation of high uranium levels. Nobody has reported having done so in reports I have seen. A belief that DU is present is not actual verifyable fact that it is.

If it is present, test results will show that, and it would then be entirely on topic here... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your approach, but I disagree with your suspicions about whether DU rounds were used, and how much. I have read and seen enough about DU to know that it is used much more than most people realize, and in many more weapon systems than people realize. Also, most people don't understand just how big a radius of DU dust is created when a DU round disintegrates against a target. I could go on, but I am just saying that it needs further investigation. This is not true: "Anyone in the press, or any doctor or resident there, could send environmental samples off to independent labs for analysis and confirmation or refutation of high uranium levels." Nothing is that simple in Iraq. I have spent years reading and sourcing hundreds of articles while helping editing Iraq War casualties, etc.. The amount of coverup, censorship, death squads, power plays, etc. is unbelievable unless one delves very deep into it. It will take years to fully expose everything. See also the Project Censored number 1 story for 2009: Over One Million Iraqi Deaths Caused by US Occupation. I agree with their conclusions. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Here are a couple more articles about Fallujah:

• Mabinogogiblog: We can assume until proved otherwise that Fallujah birth defects are due to DU. March 04, 2010. By Richard Lawson.

Having seen what appeared to be a depleted uranium (DU) missile fired at a building in Fallujah on CNN during the first week of the fighting, AFP asked the Pentagon if DU weapons are being used in Fallujah. "Yes," Lt. Col. Joe Yoswa said, "DU is a standard round on the M-1 Abrams tank." Source. That quote again: Christian Bollyn of the American Free Press , Washington D.C asked Lt.Col. Joe Yoswa if the US was using Depleted Uranium in Fallujah and received the reply that "DU is the standard round on the M-1 Abraham Tanks" which have been used in Fallujah. source

--Timeshifter (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Per Joe Yoswa, the quote is taken out of context. The interview had nothing to do with Fallujah. Christopher Bollyn's American Free Press is a Neo Nazi front and all of Bollyn's writings should be read with that context in mind. See http://www.chairmanofnordwave.blogspot.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.83.227 (talk • contribs) 09:29, 30 June 2010

75.101.83.227. I noticed that you removed some medical sources for info on DU health effects from the article. Such as:

Hindin, R. et al. (2005) "Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective," Environmental Health, vol. 4, pp. 17. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Mabinogogiblog: We can assume until proved otherwise that Fallujah birth defects are due to DU. March 04, 2010. By Richard Lawson.

ICBUW is investigating the possible use of uranium weapons during the attacks on Fallujah. Currently it seems that Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles were deployed during both battles. Both vehicles carry armour piercing rounds containing uranium and high explosive rounds which do not. However the fact that they were not facing armoured targets does not mean that only high explosive rounds were used. In fact, there are indications that armour piercing ammunition may be more effective against individuals fighting behind cover in urban areas. While is not known how widespread the use of uranium weapons was during the fighting, it seems likely that it was used to some extent. Source

US Troops Covering Up Chem Weapons In Fallujah? By Dahr Jamail. Jan 19, 2005. This article talks about how the military used bulldozers to clear and remove the rubble and soil from certain areas of heavy fighting, but not others. The article does not say where the rubble and soil was put. The BBC article linked higher up has this: "The rubble from the damaged buildings was bulldozed into the river - and people in Falluja have got their drinking water from there ever since."

In addition, many of his friends have told him that the military brought in water tanker trucks to power blast the streets, although he hadn't seen this himself. ... Again, this is reflective of stories I've been told by several refugees from Fallujah.

Just last December, a 35 year-old merchant from Fallujah, Abu Hammad, told me what he'd experienced when he was still in the city during the siege. "The American warplanes came continuously through the night and bombed everywhere in Fallujah! It did not stop even for a moment!

The new ‘forgotten’ war. Mar 18, 2010. Aljazeera Magazine. By Dahr Jamail.

Ghazi reported that in Fallujah, which bore the brunt of two massive U.S. military operations in 2004, as many as 25 percent of newborn infants have serious physical abnormalities. Cancer rates in Babil, an area south of Baghdad, have risen from 500 cases in 2004 to more than 9,000 in 2009. Dr. Jawad al-Ali, the director of the Oncology Center in Basra, told said that there were 1,885 cases of cancer in all of 2005; between 1,250 and 1,500 patients visit his center every month now.

--Timeshifter (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

FWiW, Dahr Jamail is a known Islamic sympathizer who is currently working for a far-left nonprofit advocacy group, so any statements made by him or attributed to him should be taken with a BIG grain of salt. 67.170.215.166 (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

People can decide for themselves about Dr. Jawad al-Ali, the director of the Oncology Center in Basra, and the reporter Dahr Jamail who reports for various media organizations such as Aljazeera Magazine. People can also make up their own minds about Truthout. Wikipedia just reports the info and the sources. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

WHO report on Iraqi birth defects

As regards the WHO/Iraqi MoH study into rates of congenital birth defects in Iraq, the official line is that the report is yet to be finalised, however a video package from BBC World appeared to pre-empt the announcement last week. The reporter interviewed MoH researchers who said that the study would find a link between increased rates of birth defects and areas subject to heavy fighting. We posted a summary here the BBC package is available here, with the study discussed halfway through. ICBUW (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

See: World Health Organization and Iraq Ministry of Health.

What's delaying the WHO report on Iraqi birth defects?. June 6, 2013. Al Jazeera English. By Dr Mozhgan Savabieasfahani, a native of Iran, and an environmental toxicologist based in Michigan. She is the author of over two dozen peer reviewed articles and the book, Pollution and Reproductive Damage (DVM 2009). From the article:

During the same BBC documentary, called "Born under a bad sign", two other Ministry of Health researchers discussed the unpublished study. They confirmed that that cancers and birth defects constitute a major crisis for the next generation of Iraqi children. They specifically confirmed simultaneous increases in cancers and congenital anomalies in three governorates - Nineveh, Anbar and Najaf - linking those increases to munitions used during the war. ... One possible answer was suggested on May 26 by the Guardian. It reported the recent comments of Hans von Sponeck, the former assistant secretary general of the United Nations: "The US government sought to prevent WHO from surveying areas in southern Iraq where depleted uranium had been used and caused serious health and environmental dangers."

--Timeshifter (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

More news on the WHO report:

• WHO’s Iraq Birth Defect Study Omits Causation. By Sudeshna Chowdhury. 17 July 2013. Inter Press Service.
• The WHO must release report on Iraqi birth defects now. By Mozhgan Savabieasfahani. 11 Aug 2013. Al Jazeera English. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:51, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Criticism of WHO summary document

How the World Health Organisation covered up Iraq's nuclear nightmare. By Nafeez Ahmed. 13 October 2013. The Guardian. From the article (emphasis added):

Dr. Keith Bavistock of the Department of Environmental Science, University of Eastern Finland, is a retired 13-year WHO expert on radiation and health. He told me that the new 'summary document' was at best "disappointing." He condemned the decision from "the very outset to preclude the possibility of looking at the extent to which the increase of birth defects is linked to the use of depleted uranium", and further slammed the document's lack of scientific credibility. ... If so, it would not be the first time the WHO had reportedly quashed research on DU potentially embarrassing for the Allies. In 2001, Baverstock was on the editorial board for a WHO research project ... According to Hans von Sponeck, former UN assistant secretary general and UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq, ... said that US political pressure on WHO had scuppered previous investigations into the impact of DU on Iraq ... The International Coalition to Ban Depleted Uranium (ICBUW) has called for WHO to release the project's data-set so that it can be subjected to independent, transparent analysis.

--Timeshifter (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

A June 2014 report by Dutch peace organisation PAX: Laid to Waste. Depleted uranium contaminated military scrap in Iraq. Author: Wim Zwijnenburg. Contributors: Edward Rowe (Norwegian People's Aid). Editor: Doug Weir (International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons). "This report was financed by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs" (from the introduction). From page 18 of the report (emphasis added):

The study’s methodology and opacity was met with severe criticism by experts. British medical journal The Lancet consulted peer reviewers of the report and a former WHO scientist, they questioned the methodology used by the WHO, particularly the decision not to include hospital records from areas where doctors have reported an increase in CBDs [congenital birth defects]. The full report and dataset has yet to be published, and Fallujah paediatrician Dr. Alaani has led a worldwide call for full disclosure of the research data in an open access journal. A petition to the WHO and the Iraqi Ministry of Health attracted more than 55,000 signatures.

--Timeshifter (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Level of destruction in Fallujah

Google News searches:

• http://news.google.com/news/search?q=falluja+births - last few weeks.
• http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=falluja+births - a few archived articles over years.

• 'My baby was blind. She couldn't eat or speak. I mourn for her' – families' heartache over Falluja birth defects. By Martin Chulov in Falluja. 13 November 2009 The Guardian.

One of few people she can turn to is Dr Bassem Allah, the senior obstetrician who is chief custodian of Falluja's newborns. During medical school he had to search Iraq for case studies of an infant with a birth defect. "It was almost impossible during the 80s," he says. "Now, every day in my clinic or elsewhere in the hospital, there are large numbers of congenital abnormalities or cases of chronic tumours." ... "There is not yet any science to tell us why. No one has come here to take soil samples, or make examinations. I think the Iraqi government does not want it proven that the Americans used forbidden weapons here. If there is scientific proof that the war was responsible for so many deformities, there will likely be problems for officials here." ... The US claimed to have killed 2,000 people, mainly insurgents, but produced no figures for civilians. Western media were kept out but accounts emerged of indiscriminate killing. Iraqi medical officials and NGOs put the civilian toll at up to 6,000. Falluja's compensation commissioner said 36,000 out of 50,000 homes were destroyed, with 60 schools and 65 mosques and shrines. At least 200,000 civilians became refugees.

That's a lot of house, school, mosque, and shrine rubble. And according to the articles much of it was put into the river where the drinking water comes from. Along with much of the ammo and specialized munitions that was pulverized into dust, and ended up mixed in with the rubble. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This article summarizes the history of Fallujah during the Iraq War, and the level of destruction:

• Letter from America: Remembering FALLUJAH and NATO War Crimes. June 3, 2012. By Dr. Habib Siddiqui. World Institute for Asian Studies. Article quotes below (emphasis added).

The assault in Fallujah, called Operation Phantom Fury - the bloodiest battle involving American troops since the Vietnam War (1968), was preceded by eight weeks of aerial bombardment. ... On November 8 [2004], 10,000 U.S. troops, equipped with artillery and tanks, supported from the air by bombers and helicopter gunships, blasted their way into the city. By the end of operations, the ‘City of the Mosques’ and shrines lay in ruins. Fallujah's compensation commissioner reported that 36,000 of the city's 50,000 homes were destroyed, along with 60 schools and 65 mosques and shrines. Even after eight years, there is hardly a building that does not have bullet scars on its structure. ... The few studies that have been done suggest that there is “genetic damage” within the population, and the evidence suggests ionizing radiation exposure as the cause. This has led some to say that the health crisis in Fallujah is worse than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the atomic bombs. So many children in Fallujah are now being born horribly deformed or mentally retarded that many women are afraid to try to have families. The U.S. occupation has had horrible effects on the Iraqi population, but Fallujah has suffered more than any other Iraqi city. Fallujah is to the Occupation of Iraq, what My Lai was to the Vietnam War, and what Hiroshima and Nagasaki were to World War II.” ... Parents didn’t want to talk. "Families bury their newborn babies after they die without telling anyone," said hospital spokesman Nadim al-Hadidi. "It’s all too shameful for them… We recorded 672 cases in [the month of] January [alone] but we know there were many more," said Hadidi. Facing a frozen image of a child born without limbs, parents’ feelings usually range between shame and guilt. "They think it’s their fault, that there’s something wrong with them. And it doesn’t help at all when some elder tells them it’s been ‘God’s punishment’," said Hadidi. According to a study released by the Switzerland-based International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health in July 2010, "the increases in cancer, leukemia and infant mortality and perturbations of the normal human population birth sex ratio in Fallujah are significantly greater than those reported for the survivors of the A-Bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945." Similarly, Dr Chris Busby, author of “Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth-Sex Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005-2006,” said, “We found that the infant mortality rates compared with Egypt and Jordan were about four or five times higher, and about ten times higher if you taker countries like Kuwait, where there is good health care.”

--Timeshifter (talk) 08:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Section break

Here is an article from March 4, 2010: "Fallujah birth defects blamed on US weapons". By Daniel Tencer. Raw Story.

The Pentagon admitted in 2005 that it had used white phosphorous munitions during the battle, as well as depleted uranium shells, which contain radioactive material. BBC world affairs editor John Simpson said the Fallujah hospital's maternity ward is "absolutely packed" with babies suffering from congenital heart defects. He says he was shown a picture of a three-headed baby, and saw children suffering from paralysis and brain damage. Researcher Malik Hamdan told the BBC he had seen footage of "babies born with an eye in the middle of the forehead, the nose on the forehead."

There are more recent news articles too:

• http://news.google.com/news?q=falluja+birth+defects

• CNN video. May 11, 2010. Birth defects on the rise in Falluja. By Mohammed Jamjoom. World Health Organization to investigate.

• The Cult of Nuclearists. By Geoff Kelly & Louis Ricciuti. May 13, 2010. The Palestine Telegraph. Originally, May 12, 2010, in ArtVoice of Buffalo, New York. See:

http://artvoice.com/issues/v9n19/cult_of_nuclearists

An example that he provides in the book: Imagine you are walking through Fallujah, which was bombarded with depleted uranium armaments, on a windy day. (Or, for that matter, imagine you are driving down Buffalo Avenue this summer with the car windows open, as concrete saws, jackhammers, and backhoes send plumes of dust into the air.) You breathe in a particle of uranium, which lodges in your lung. As each atom decays, the uranium emits alpha particles that pack millions of electron volts—that’s what makes a Geiger counter click—more than enough to damage or break a strand of DNA or RNA. These alpha particles can only travel about six cell diameters, so a tremendous amount of potentially destructive energy is concentrated in a very small area of the lung. But the radiation protection agencies consider the energy emitted by that particle as a dose to the entire lung—when and if internal does are considered at all. That is to say, they average out that tremendous burst of energy over a much larger mass of tissue, thus diluting its apparent impact—at least on paper. “They’re creating a mathematical fiction by saying that that’s a lung dose,” Zimmerman says. “But it’s not a lung dose; it’s a dose to individual cells. Cancer is known to start from the aberration in an individual cell. It has nothing to do with a lung dose. You have to look at the individual cell and the cellular response.”

--Timeshifter (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

On the issue of Fallujah, discussions that we have had with marines who served in the battles indicate that they just fired everything they had, including DU as it forms part of the standard combat load of Abrams and Bradleys. However as these are anecdotal we are waiting for a FoI request to be published. DU munitions were originally cleared for use on the premise that they were to be used for piercing armour, however the experience of the Balkans and Iraq rather suggests that they are being employed against a wider range of targets. Civilian infrastructure such as broadcast equipment and administrative buildings have all been targeted in recent conflicts. The WHO has begun an investigation into the rise in birth defects in Fallujah, no idea when it will be completed though. ICBUW (talk) 09:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you have some links for the info from the marines? Also, more links for the impending or ongoing WHO imvestigation. Also, for the Balkans and other places. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Will post the FoI data up when we get it...if we get it - been a long time coming thus far... Sky News on the WHO study: Sky News our full report on the Balkans will be published later this year. On the non-armoured targets front, one example in Serbia is Pljackovica mountain near Vranje where a communications tower was attacked by an A10 UNEP report on DU in Serbia & Montenegro and in Iraq in 2003 this film "The Unknown Terror of DU" shows an A10 strafing a government ministry: Unknown Terror of DU there's some more background on our current thinking, particularly over user transparency and precaution here: ICBUW discussion paper ICBUW (talk) 10:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I found this info on the video:

A DVD documentary, Unknown Terror of DU: Iraqi Children Now, by N.Toyoda and H.Shimizu (Japanese and English; 2005).

From: http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/i/70.html

Chernobyl disaster page is informative. Here is some relevant info from it (emphasis added):

Chernobyl's Exclusion Zone

In his book Disasters: Wasted Lives, Valuable Lessons, economist and crisis consultant Randall Bell writes after his research at Chernobyl:

There is a 17-mile (sic) Exclusion Zone around Chernobyl where officially nobody is allowed to live, but people do. These "resettlers" are elderly people who lived in the region prior to the disaster. Today there are approximately 10,000 people between the ages of 60 and 90 living within the Zone around Chernobyl. Younger families are allowed to visit, but only for brief periods of time.

Eventually the land could be utilized for some sort of industrial purpose that would involve concrete sites. But estimates range from 60 – 200 years before this would be allowed. Farming or any other type of agricultural industry would be dangerous and completely inappropriate for at least 200 years. It will be at least two centuries before there is any chance the situation can change within the 1.5-mile Exclusion Zone. As for the #4 reactor where the meltdown occurred, we estimate it will be 20,000 years before the real estate will be fully safe. - Reference: Bell, Randall. Disasters: Wasted Lives, Valuable Lessons.

Fallujah allows young families and children to live in an untested toxic environment. I have not yet heard of any tests of the water supplies, dirt, or dust for DU or other toxic contaminants. See also:

Hindin, R. et al. (2005) "Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective," Environmental Health, vol. 4, pp. 17. It states (emphasis added):

"Conclusion. In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU."

Are there any links to interviews with Fallujah soldiers stating that DU rounds were used? --Timeshifter (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Surveys

Martin Chulov of the Guardian "Iraq littered with high levels of nuclear and dioxin contamination, study finds”, The Guardian, 22 January 2010,reports of an official study recently completed by the Iraq Ministries of Health, Environment and Science that finds that 42 sites across Iraq are heavily contaminated with high levels of radiation and dioxins. The study finds that these sites include Fallujah, Basra and Najaf. Has anyone copies of the study?

Also read Al-Azzawi, S., "Depleted Uranium Radioactive Contamination in Iraq: An Overview", Mamoun University for Science and Technology, which is available on WWW. The overview shows that extensive research has been undertaken by Iraqi academic scientists and medical professionals on depleted uranium throughout Iraq. The review suggests that the ongoing sanctions have had a significant bearing on international publication of the research undertaken in Iraq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.152.61.98 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 9 September 2010

Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima'. By Patrick Cockburn. 24 July 2010. The Independent. Selected excerpts:

The survey was carried out by a team of 11 researchers in January and February this year [2010] who visited 711 houses in Fallujah. A questionnaire was filled in by householders giving details of cancers, birth outcomes and infant mortality. Hitherto the Iraqi government has been loath to respond to complaints from civilians about damage to their health during military operations.

The study, entitled "Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq 2005-2009", is by Dr Busby, Malak Hamdan and Entesar Ariabi, and concludes that anecdotal evidence of a sharp rise in cancer and congenital birth defects is correct.

The report says that the types of cancer are "similar to that in the Hiroshima survivors who were exposed to ionising radiation from the bomb and uranium in the fallout". ... The sex-ratio is an indicator of genetic damage that affects boys more than girls. A similar change in the sex-ratio was discovered after Hiroshima.

Here is the survey and report:

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2922729/

According to various articles access to Fallujah is tightly controlled. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the FOIA request on the use of DU in Fallujah - nearly 12 months gone now and they claim that no records were kept for first assault, may be some on second but they haven't been able to find any yet and will try more sources...next date is December. In the meantime the UN First Committee has passed a resolution calling on state users to transfer information on DU use to the relevant authorities of affected states upon request see: UN First Committee sends clear message to depleted uranium users over transparency the General Assembly will vote on it at the end of November. ICBUW (talk) 10:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a Google image search for Fallujah depleted uranium:

http://www.google.com/images?q=Fallujah+depleted+uranium

The images can be followed back to articles. Some of them may be used as references. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

"Research links rise in Falluja birth defects and cancers to US assault". By Martin Chulov. 30 December 2010. The Guardian.

In the first half of 2010, the number of monthly cases of serious abnormalities rose to unprecedented levels. In Falluja general hospital, 15% of the 547 babies born in May [2010] had a chronic deformity, such as a neural tune defect – which affects the brain and lower limbs – cardiac, or skeletal abnormalities, or cancers. No other city in Iraq has anywhere near the same levels of reported abnormalities. Falluja sees at least 11 times as many major defects in newborns than world averages, the research has shown.

--Timeshifter (talk) 04:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The recent paper mentioned above adds extra weight to the call for more research into all environmental risk factors in Fallujah. It also indicates that a second paper is in press that will give more detail on the rates of health problems at Fallujah General Hospital, should be helpful. ICBUW (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)ICBUW

Timeshifter - this article has been mainly written from the ICBUW's viewpoint. They need to keep DU in the public mind. Donations will dry up once people realize that nothing really happened and that DU penetrator munitions have not been used since 2003. Why don't you write to me. I have been researching DU for over six years. I started out querying people like Doug Rokke, Dai Williams, Chris Busby, etc. and I found out that none of them had done any scientific research and that Rokke and Busby were very prone to making unsupportable claims about their own education, experience and knowledge of DU. The ICBUW has always relied upon people like Busby (even though Doug Weir claims otherwise, he always claims Busby's manipulative triumphs like the Fallujah claims as being reasons to support the ICBUW) - Roger DUStory-owner@yahoogroups.com

Depleted Uranium was not used in Fallujah. There were no tank battles in 2003 and no Sunni insurgent/Al Qaeda/foreign fighter tanks to battle in either of the two hard fought battles of 2004. Just because a small number of Abrams Tanks participated in the 2004 Battles of Fallujah does not mean that DU was used. Tanks carry ammunition suitable for the task that they are to perform. These tanks did not expect to encounter any enemy tanks and did not carry DU armor piercing ammunition, let alone fire it. The many claims around the world being made about DU causing birth defects in Fallujah are false. That, however, has not stopped them from being made. The propagandists making them use the fallacy, if there were American tanks, there was DU and if there was DU, there are birth defects. None of that fallacy is true, but it is repeated on an endless multiple times a day basis. The original writer of this also bought into that. Richard S Lowry spent two years researching his book New Dawn: The Battles for Fallujah and I have also corresponded with a Marine tank crewman who said that he never fired a sabot round (the DU round for the M1 is a sabot round)during any of his three tours of Iraq. The crewman also told me that he had never had a sabot round in any of the tanks that he had crewed. That makes a lot of sense, something generally missing in this alleged controversy. DU makes nice small round holes, it does not blow up and it is ineffective against anything other than armor plate so it makes sense to carry other types of ammunition that can be effective against dug in insurgents/Al Quaeda/foreign fighters.

We do not have to accept that birth defects are high in Fallujah. We have to accept that there are some birth defects in Fallujah and that they have been caught on camera. There is no controversy; there is deliberate propaganda that makes false claims. There is no need for a radio/chemical survey (whatever that might be) - all you really need is the load out records for the small number of tanks that served in Fallujah.

Roger - DUStory-owner@yahoogroups.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.101.83.227 (talk) 12:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Its not propaganda because if it was we wouldn't be discussing it here, the mere reason it is grabbing our attention is that apart from the BBC and the Guardian reports as well as the medical statistical reports, the probability that brain cancers as well as birth mutations as a result of DU is extremely high. Just because there have been no tests of DU on humans is pretty obvious. No serious government has the moral authority to conduct such tests, yet surprisingly there are those who are not 'activists' would maintain these tests are necessary to establish if any War Crime was committed? Dilemma? Have a guess! Gulf War Syndrome is something that links very well into this as well the statements made by the Ministry of Defence on whether DU was used at the time of the Gulf War 1. Zylog79 (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

In spite of Roger's protestations, there will not be conclusive proof either way on Fallujah until a detailed environmental analysis has taken place. Studies done to date have not been methodologically sound enough to deliver what they claim to have found and the US is denying any use there post July 2004. - Reference: http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/a/406.html --ICBUW (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Detailed reference info for the previously discussed survey: Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq, 2005–2009, By Chris Busby, Malak Hamdan and Enteser Ariabi, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health July, 2010, ISSN 1660-4601. Article is here, too. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

"Roger - DUStory-owner@yahoogroups.com" - This signature for several messages here is for Lieutenant Colonel Roger Helbig, USAF, (retired). For more info on his efforts concerning depleted uranium:

• Roger Helbig and depleted uranium. 1 Feb 2007, and updated 19 August 2010. The Ecologist.

He uses his full name sometimes when also mentioning the DUStory Yahoo Group. For example; see his Twitter account:

• Roger Helbig (Rhotel1) on Twitter.

--Timeshifter (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Samples

Have there been any studies been done, or have any samples been taken, to find out how much DU has been found in dust, water, etc. in Fallujah? Also, do you have any links to info on what DU use the US has admitted to concerning Fallujah? --Timeshifter (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Not to our knowledge and we've been keeping a close eye on developments. Seems like an oversight but the logistical issues involved are considerable, as is avoiding cross contamination when sampling etc. Iraq at present has only one ICP-MS machine (based in Baghdad) and removal of contaminated soils to other countries is a nightmare - much like work in Iraq full stop. On the US position wrt use of DU in Fallujah - a grudgingly answered FOIA request claimed that no depleted uranium weapons were used in the Iraqi city of Fallujah during Operation Phantom Fury in November and December 2004. However, it has also revealed that no records were kept on the use of the weapons in Fallujah prior to July 2004. ICBUW Fallujah article ICBUW (talk) 08:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

A-10 Warthogs were used during the Second Battle of Fallujah in November and December 2004. See the talk section farther down with the quotes from the book about that battle. Did they not use depleted uranium rounds? According to these 2 ICBUW pages (here and here) DU rounds were the majority of rounds used in the A-10 Warthogs. From the January 2010 ICBUW article: "The PGU-14/B [DU round] is standard ammunition for the A-10, usually used in a ratio of 5-1 in concert with the PGU-13/B high explosive round." I believe that it is only recently that they have stopped using DU rounds in the A-10 Warthogs. In Libya: Quote from April 2011 article here: "A US Airforce Spokeswoman has told a Scottish journalist that, as of 2nd April, A-10s fighting in Libya have not been firing DU ammunition. However, she refused to give any assurances about the future use of DU, stating that she didn't want 'to speculate on what may or may not be used in the future'. ... If Kurtz's statement is correct, then this is the first public acknowledgement by the US that A-10s are being loaded with only PGU-13 rounds [not DU], although the practice has previously been identified in photographs of A-10 units in Afghanistan." --Timeshifter (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

A-10 Warthogs used their antitank cannons in Fallujah

GAU-8 Avenger is the antitank cannon in the A-10 Warthog aircraft.

House to House: A Soldier's Memoir - Page 74. By David Bellavia, John R. Bruning - 2008 - 347 pages. Quote from page 74 (emphasis added):

"Every weapon available in our arsenal short of nukes is turned on Fallujah. The pre-assault bombardment is unrelenting. Jet after jet drops its bombs and rockets. Warthogs—the big, bruising A-10 Thunderbolt II close-support aircraft -- strafe the main avenues into the city with their 30mm antitank cannon. Fallujah is smothered in bombs, shrouded in smoke. Buildings collapse. Mines detonate. Artillery roars."

An ICBUW article from March 21, 2011: Statement on the potential use of depleted uranium in Libya. Quote from the article (emphasis added):

A10-Thunderbolt. The A-10 fires a mixture of DU-based armour piercing, and non-DU high explosive rounds from a rotary cannon mounted below the cockpit. The A-10 is the platform responsible for most of the DU fired in Iraq in both 1991 and 2003, and all of the DU fired in the Balkans. At present there are no reports that the A-10 has been deployed in the current hostilities, but its cannon was designed for attacking armoured vehicles, so it is a possible contender for future deployment.

--Timeshifter (talk) 20:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 article. Samples show high uranium levels in Fallujah

"Uranium and other contaminants in hair from the parents of children with congenital anomalies in Fallujah, Iraq". Samira Alaani, Muhammed Tafash, Christopher Busby, Malak Hamdan, and Eleonore Blaurock-Busch. 2011 September 2. Conflict and Health.

Quote from article (emphasis added): "Conclusions. Whilst caution must be exercised about ruling out other possibilities, because none of the elements found in excess are reported to cause congenital diseases and cancer except Uranium, these findings suggest the enriched Uranium exposure is either a primary cause or related to the cause of the congenital anomaly and cancer increases. Questions are thus raised about the characteristics and composition of weapons now being deployed in modern battlefields"

An article discussing the mass spectrometry used: "MS test used in Uranium exposure study". 2011 September 6. Chromatography Today. --Timeshifter (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The article in Conflict and Health says that high levels of a range of heavy metals were found, "In high excess were Ca, Mg, Sr, Al, Bi and Hg." Levels of uranium absorbed by mothers were unexceptional: just three or four times higher than background levels in other parts of the world. This isn't surprising, as higher than usual levels of uranium were found in the local water supplies.

The area is clearly contaminated with heavy metals, but although uranium levels are slightly higher than some other places they aren't high enough to cause the malformations and illnesses noted. This is much more likely to be due to chemical pollution; and the three derelict organo-chemical factories nearby are a likely source. Davy p (talk) 04:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I prefer to believe what the experts say from the article, and not what you believe. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact of the matter remains that birth defects are very high in Fallujah since the heavy use of U-238 weapons in this area. There are other hot areas within Iraq. American military personnel are warned about the dangers in and about destroyed vehicles and must wear proper garments when inspecting these hot areas. The long report referred to here is very careful to not expose U-238 as much of a problem. However, I will finally trust the military's change of heart in it's being very careful around U-238 which has become a 'puffy dust' which is easily inhaled.

Also, I must refer you to the very expensive cleanup of toxins in Kuwait of which U-238 remains a huge and very expensive problem. The contaminated soil here is being transported to sites in Tennesee and Utah for processing. Kuwait gets a cleanup while Iraq's U-238 problem is considered a very low priority. -- Nebulastardust 20:05 23 Feb 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.72.151.96 (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed journals

The peer-reviewed journal Conflict and Health (see more in the September 2011 section higher up). Conflict and Health | Full text | Uranium and other contaminants in hair from the parents of children with congenital anomalies in Fallujah, Iraq. More info at greenaudit.org and their press release on 17 October 2011.

Detailed reference info for the previously discussed survey (in the survey section higher up): Cancer, Infant Mortality and Birth Sex-Ratio in Fallujah, Iraq, 2005–2009, By Chris Busby, Malak Hamdan and Enteser Ariabi, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health July, 2010, ISSN 1660-4601. Article is here, too. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

New secondary literature review with full text. Shelleh, H.H. (2012). "Depleted Uranium: Is it potentially involved in the recent upsurge of malignancies in populations exposed to war dust?" Saudi Medical Journal [9] [10]. 33(5):483-8 PMID 22588807. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Metal Contamination and the Epidemic of Congenital Birth Defects in Iraqi Cities. [11]. M. Al-Sabbak, S. Sadik Ali, O. Savabi, G. Savabi, S. Dastgiri and M. Savabieasfahani. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. [12]. Received: 27 July 2012 / Accepted: 30 August 2012 / Published online: 16 September 2012. Volume 89, Number 5 (2012), 937-944, DOI:10.1007/s00128-012-0817-2.

See Template:Cite doi. More info below via this use of the template: {{Cite journal | last1 = Al-Sabbak | first1 = M. | last2 = Sadik Ali | first2 = S. | last3 = Savabi | first3 = O. | last4 = Savabi | first4 = G. | last5 = Dastgiri | first5 = S. | last6 = Savabieasfahani | first6 = M. | doi = 10.1007/s00128-012-0817-2 | title = Metal Contamination and the Epidemic of Congenital Birth Defects in Iraqi Cities | journal = Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology | volume = 89 | issue = 5 | pages = 937–944 | year = 2012 | pmid = 22983726| pmc =3464374 }}

Al-Sabbak, M.; Sadik Ali, S.; Savabi, O.; Savabi, G.; Dastgiri, S.; Savabieasfahani, M. (2012). "Metal Contamination and the Epidemic of Congenital Birth Defects in Iraqi Cities". Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 89 (5): 937–944. doi:10.1007/s00128-012-0817-2. PMC 3464374. PMID 22983726. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Hindin, R. et al. (2005) "Teratogenicity of depleted uranium aerosols: A review from an epidemiological perspective," Environmental Health, vol. 4, pp. 17. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-4-17
• Dyer O (2006) "WHO suppressed evidence on effects of depleted uranium, expert says". British Medical Journal, 333 (7576): 990. doi:10.1136/bmj.39027.603264.DB Full text
• Arzuaga X, Rieth S H, Bathija A and Cooper G S (2010) "Renal effects of exposure to natural and depleted uranium: a review of the epidemiologic and experimental data". Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B, 13 (7–8): 527–545. doi:10.1080/10937404.2010.509015
• Briner W (2010) "The toxicity of depleted uranium". International journal of environmental research and public health, 7 (1): 303–313. doi:10.3390/ijerph7010303 Full text
• Katz S A (2014) "The chemistry and toxicology of depleted uranium". Toxics, 2 (1): 50–78. doi:10.3390/toxics201005 Full text
• Levy B S and Sidel V W (2013) "Adverse health consequences of the Iraq War". The Lancet, 381 (9870): 949–958. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60254-8 (Unofficial full text)

--Timeshifter (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

DU weapons and platforms used in Fallujah

According to User:ICBUW this is "a not exhaustive but relatively complete list of weapons and platforms that utilise DU":

• International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons - Weapons and Platforms.

I would like more references citing which ones were used in Fallujah. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Where DU weapons and platforms were used in Iraq

Here is some more info on where DU weapons and platforms were used in Iraq: Laid to Waste: depleted uranium contaminated military scrap in Iraq. 20 June 2014 article by International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons. From the article (emphasis added):

For the first time the report reveals US strike coordinates, finding that DU was used against unmounted troops and soft targets, in breach of US legal guidelines. The report also considers international standards for radioactive waste management and how these standards were not applied to DU contamination in Iraq. ... DU use has been documented against tanks, armoured vehicles, unmounted troops and buildings in populated areas. Long after each conflict, military remnants destroyed with DU could be found in towns, cities and rural areas.

--Timeshifter (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

US military in vitro and in vivo research compendiums

These may be of interest: in vitro studies: http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/a/436.html in vivo studies: http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/a/437.html presentations by Alexandra Miller at the US Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (AFRRI). Good reviews of the state of research in Nov 2010.ICBUW (talk) 09:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

From http://dodreports.com/ada539772 is this:

A Review of Depleted Uranium Biological Effects: In vivo Studies. By: Alexandra C. Miller; November 1, 2010. Publisher: Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Inst Bethesda Md.

Outstanding Questions: * Will health effects of DU develop in the cohort as it grows older? * What are the health effects of concern related to effects of DU embedded fragments on adjacent tissues? * Should even small pieces of DU shrapnel be removed? * Development of in Situ Surveillance Protocol * Objective: To identify and manage (prevent) health effects related to fragment retention * Risk of the development of tumors at fragment sites * Foreign body effects? Medical implants (hip, knee joints, dental implants, etc) - Bullets * Chemical effects? In Situ Imaging Methods for Surveillance of Fragments and Surrounding Tissue * Current using x-ray films to look for changes in the shape and other physical characteristics of the fragments * Exploring other available imaging methods for identifying pre-neoplastic lesions or primary stage tumors. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

DU and medical treatment in Fallujah

American weapons blamed for health problems at hospital in Fallujah. By Agence France-Presse. August 8, 2012. From the article: "Medics and officials in Fallujah, however, including hospital director Lawas, have no doubt the defects have been caused by the US forces’ alleged use of depleted uranium rounds in 2004." --Timeshifter (talk) 05:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

ICBUW report

New Report Adds to Concern Over Use Of Depleted Uranium By US, UK. By Mark Hirst. August 29, 2014. RIA Novosti. From the article (emphasis added):

The International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons (ICBUW) has published a new report summarizing 50 peer-reviewed studies showing a clear and ongoing health risk arising from the use of depleted uranium (DU) by the US and UK. The publication coincides with a call by the Government of Iraq for an international treaty to be established banning DU weapons.

Iraq calls for global ban as study confirms depleted uranium cancer risks. August 28, 2014. Afri, Action from Ireland. From the article (emphasis added):

However a new analysis of nearly 50 peer-reviewed studies has concluded that the chemically toxic and radioactive substance can damage DNA and cause cancer, the report calls for urgent studies into the extent to which civilians are being exposed to DU. All radioactive substances that emit alpha radiation, including DU, have already been classified by the WHO’s specialist International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as Group 1 carcinogens if they get inside the human body. Studies show that DU can also damage DNA and cellular processes in a number of different ways, such as by triggering oxidative damage, breaking DNA strands and binding directly to the DNA itself. Other papers have documented that DU can cause mutations in DNA, change the structure of chromosomes, make cells become cancerous and destabilise the genome. “These studies contain irrefutable evidence of the damage that DU can do,” said David Cullen, one of the report’s authors.

--Timeshifter (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Iraq health statistics

Iraqi Doctors Call Depleted Uranium Use "Genocide". 14 October 2014. By Dahr Jamail, Truthout. From the article (emphasis added):

Official Iraqi government statistics show that, prior to the outbreak of the first Gulf War in 1991, the country's rate of cancer cases was 40 out of 100,000 people. By 1995, it had increased to 800 out of 100,000 people, and, by 2005, it had doubled to at least 1,600 out of 100,000 people. Current estimates show the trend continuing. ... Dr. Samira Alani, a pediatric specialist at Fallujah General Hospital, has taken a personal interest in investigating an explosion of congenital abnormalities that have mushroomed in the wake of the US sieges since 2005. "We have all kinds of defects now, ranging from congenital heart disease to severe physical abnormalities, both in numbers you cannot imagine," Alani told Truthout at her office in the hospital last year, while sharing countless photos of shocking birth defects. Alani also co-authored a study in 2010 that showed the rate of heart defects in Fallujah to be 13 times the rate found in Europe. And, for birth defects involving the nervous system, the rate was calculated to be 33 times that found in Europe for the same number of births. In pursuit of answers, Alani visited Japan, where she met with Japanese doctors who study birth defect rates they believe are related to radiation from the US nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Alani was told birth defect incidence rates in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are currently between 1 and 2 percent. Alani's log of cases of birth defects amounts to a rate of 14.7 percent of all babies born in Fallujah, more than 14 times the rate in the effected areas of Japan. In March 2013, Alani informed Truthout that the incident rates of congenital malformations remained around 14 percent.

Depleted Uranium: The New Agent Orange. December 8, 2014. By Aliaume Leroy. Bellingcat. Numbers in the quotes below are for references at the end of the article.

The human body intakes DU in three ways: inhalation, ingestion, and dermal contact. With DU ammunitions, the inhalation route is the most common. As stated earlier, DU projectiles aerosolize when they hit a target, projecting small particles all over an area, which then remain suspended in the air by wind or settle down on the soil for later resuspension.[17] Dermal contact is less important. DU does not penetrate the skin unless a fragment enters the organism. American and British veterans were exposed to DU through these two pathways: inhaling the particles or being wounded by DU shrapnel. However, the ingestion route should not be underestimated. Iraqi children playing in conflict zone are more likely to ingest DU because of hand-to-mouth activity. Furthermore, it is known that children are “10 to 20 times more susceptible to the carcinogenic effects than adults.”[18]... Iraqi studies nonetheless present a key strength. They were conducted over seven to ten years in the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War. They can thus outline the long-term effects of DU.[24] Compiling various Iraqi scientific researches, Al-Hani and Baker conclude that “there has been a sharp rise in incidence of malignancies and congenital abnormalities in the decade that followed the use of DU shells in the attack of 1991.”[25] Reviewing the results of Dr. Alim Yacoub, an epidemiologist at the Basra Medical College, and Dr. Jenan Hasan, a neonatologist at the Women and Children’s Hospital in Basra, Dr. Thomas Fasy certified that the incidence rate of malignant diseases among children in Basra has quadrupled between 1993 and 2000.[26] The number of leukemia cases affecting children under five and congenital malformations (per 1000 births) also rose over this period: respectively from 2 to 41 and 3.04 to 17.6. [27] These figures outline the scope and depth of the health crisis faced by Iraq in the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War. It was not limited to Basra. Fallujah faced similar patterns.

--Timeshifter (talk) 04:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

DU was used against a far wider range of targets than just tanks

"A-10 being loaded with 30mm PGU-13/B high explosive incendiary (HEI) ammunition in Afghanistan. It can fire either HEI alone, or its standard combat load, which is a mixture of HEI and DU armour piercing incendiary (API) ammunition. It cannot select between ammunition types once airborne, one of the reasons why DU has historically been used against a far wider range of targets than just tanks." From caption of photo in this article: Pentagon Announces U-turn on Use of Depleted Uranium Ammunition in Iraq and Syria. March 4, 2015 article. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

DU shells are no longer being used by US aircraft in Iraq and Syria

"The Pentagon has announced that depleted uranium (DU) munitions have not, and will not, be used by US aircraft in the conflict against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria." From this article: Pentagon Announces U-turn on Use of Depleted Uranium Ammunition in Iraq and Syria. March 4, 2015 article. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Iraq studying where to bury radioactive waste

• Iraq studying fresh plan on where to bury radioactive waste. By Dina Al-Shibeeb. July 22, 2015. Saudi Gazette. From the article: "Areas around Iraqi cities such as Najaf, Basra and Fallujah accounted for more than 25 percent of the contaminated sites, with the southern city of Basra – the frontline during Iran-Iraq war and the Gulf War – having 11 sites, according to the 2010 study. The study, carried out by the environment, health and science ministries found that scrap metal yards in and around the capital Baghdad and Basra contain high levels of ionizing radiation, which is thought to come from depleted uranium used in munitions during the first Gulf war and since the 2003 invasion." --Timeshifter (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

History of DU use and targets

• The A-10 warthog: raising depleted uranium’s threshold of acceptability. 5 March 2015 - Doug Weir. International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons. Emphasis added to article quotes:

"Unlike other DU firing platforms, once airborne the pilot cannot choose between DU and HEI ammunition, as it is loaded prior to take-off. Capable of loitering above the battlefield in a close air support role, A-10s often attack targets of opportunity, many of which bear little resemblance to 'tanks'. ... A-10s were also active during the 2003 Iraq War, once again, the US has refused to disclose targeting data but a handful of coordinates obtained by PAX in 2014 provide a glimpse into the diversity of target types A-10s had engaged. The notorious strafing of Baghdad’s Ministry of Planning had already been documented by media present during the raid but the new data showed buildings, trucks and un-mounted troops had all been attacked with DU, often in urban areas."

Article describes DU targets in Bosnia between 1994-5, in the 1999 Kosovo War, and in the Iraq War. --Timeshifter (talk) 22:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Kashmiris oppose testing of depleted uranium artillery shells

• Firing range at Bajpathri will affect water supply to Srinagar: KCSDS. By Haroon Mirani. Dec 26, 2015. "Expressing apprehension over the testing of artillery shells made of depleted uranium in firing ranges, the civil society on Saturday said that the notification of proposed Bajpathri firing range will severely affect water supply to Srinagar and other areas. ... While detailing the ill-effects of such substances, renowned physician Dr G Q Allaqaband said that first thing to happen will be the increase in cancer rate. 'Lead poisoning will be second. And if radioactive pollution is correct, then women will give birth to deformed babies due to the effect,' said Dr Allaqaband."

--Timeshifter (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)