Contamination from depleted uranium found in urine 20 years later

Source: physorg.com

Inhaled depleted uranium (DU) oxide aerosols are recognised as a distinct human health hazard and DU has been suggested to be responsible in part for illness in both military and civilian populations that may have been exposed.

University of Leicester geologist, Professor Randall R Parrish will be giving this message to the 119th annual meeting of the Geological Society of America at the Colorado Convention Center in Denver on 28 October 2007.

In his talk entitled: ‘Depleted uranium (DU): its environmental dispersion and human uptake’ he will outline his research findings on a new method of tracing DU.

...................

Using his method, Professor Parrish and his research team have found traces of DU in urine more than 20 years later, in those cases where exposure to DU aerosol has been unambiguous and in sufficient quantity. This is true even when the U concentration is at the low end of the normal range.




Read more: http://www.physorg.com/news112424812.html

In the USSR and former Eastern Bloc countries behind the Iron Curtain and also in East Berlin the KGB and Secret Police used to intentionally contaminate "people of interest" with a radioactive isotope so they could track them using modified geiger counters. Apparently it took years to wear off so it was an effective method for spotting targets and also it would slowly poison them too so you knock out two birds with one stone. The Russians still like to use this sort of weapon to this date. Apparently we have always been in this kind of "one up-manship" with the Russians, to see who is the most sick and twisted as Bush has shown us with Gitmo and gunning down civilians. I suspect Bush and Putin will be hamming it up in between whipping sessions in hell when their time comes.

The use of DU weapons is obviously quite deliberate and worse than if we just dropped a nuclear weapon on the people of Iraq because the effects are not noticeable until later. Maybe if enough American and British children are born hideously deformed and malformed people will wake up.

I have difficulty believing the American and British governments did not know the ramifications of using these weapons in Iraq the first time. The government obviously knew the second time. They not only did not and do not care about the Iraqi people, they don't care about their own people.

We have had a president who used them, a president who refused to allow remediation of the radioactive dust and a president who used them again.

It is a chilling reflection on John D Rockefeller's endorsement of "eugenics by war" and is nothing more than a second Holocaust.

And we need a second Nuremberg to address it. Bush, Clinton, and Bush. Major, Blair and Brown. The British lapdogs of the American presidents.

One need only go back to Madeline Albright's comment on 60 Minutes about how the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children were worth it to know the complicity of Bill Clinton.

Who knows what Hillary Clinton might do. But if history repeats itself, most likely she will merely continue the policies of the Bushes.

Including this "eugenics by war" policy to be seen quite clearly in the use of these weapons.

perpetrated against the nation of Iraq by the US government, this is probably the worst. Knowingly contaminating virtually the entire Iraqi countryside with radioactive nano-particles, whether as a part of a policy of genocide (which I would certainly never discount out of hand), or simply because our 'leaders' do not give a damn about the consequences, is sinister almost beyond belief.

Hundreds of thousands of US veterans have also been affected by DU, yet no 'journalists' express any curiosity about the matter. At least sixty percent of the offspring born to those who have been exposed to DU, suffer from severe birth defects, but one hears virtually nothing about it, from the so called, MSM.

There can be no doubt, that detailed information about this issue, is being deliberately suppressed by the corporate owned media. But, in an era when all of the major information outlets are owned and controlled by the military-industrial complex (in other words, the companies that own the media, are likely to be making profits, off of the weapons systems that are associated with depleted uranium), suppression of such information is certainly a logical outcome.

The writer does not give any info on concentration or radiation dose.

I'd like to know how this compares to natural and background radiation. After all, depleted uranium is found almost everywhere granite is found, so we have a known baseline. We really need to know how the aerosolized DU compares to naturally occurring DU.

Buildings made of granite such as the Texas State Capitol can yield a dose of up to 200 mrems a year. I wonder how this compares to weaponized aerosolized DU?

And yet this is all I found. His homepage doesn't have preprints or presentations.

"Inhaled depleted uranium (DU) oxide aerosols are recognised as a distinct human health hazard and DU has been suggested to be responsible in part for illness in both military and civilian populations that may have been exposed. The issue has been the subject of investigations by the Royal Society (UK), the National Academy of Science (US), and other bodies but studies of individuals that were clearly exposed to environmental contamination are lacking. Our objective was to develop a high sensitivity method of DU detection in urine using MC-ICP-mass spectrometry that would be capable of detecting an individual′s historic ≥milligram-quantity aerosol exposure to DU up to 20 years after the event. We developed this method and applied it to individuals either known or likely to have had a DU aerosol inhalation exposure, and to a large voluntary cohort of 1991 Gulf conflict veterans (see www.DUOB.org) to assess DU-exposure screening reliability and accumulate data on exposure. Where exposure to DU aerosol has been unambiguous and in sufficient quantity, urinary excretion of DU can be detected more than 20 years later by our method, even when DU forms only ~1% of the total excreted uranium, and when U concentration is at the low end of the normal range (~1ppt U in urine). Most such samples would return a negative screening result with other, less sensitive methods. Our method has been used to show (1) that it is capable of resolving legal cases based upon a claim of DU exposure, (2) that the occurrence of DU in 1991 Gulf Conflict veterans is likely to be uncommon to rare, but (3) if a significant (i.e. mg-quantity) inhalation exposure occurred, that it can be detected in urine for decades to come. The method offers a way to resolve debates about DU and health and provide perspective on the issue. Resolving the potential implications of DU to health in contaminated populations is best done by properly testing exposed cohorts. The cohorts in need of study are those living in DU-contaminated areas of Iraq or those that have lived in the vicinity of DU munition factories with large DU contamination footprints."
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2007AM/finalprogram/abstract_129974.htm

Most interesting (to me) was what must be looking at isotope ratios compared to some standard background to detect DU as a component of U release. I wonder how they'd do that, and what the error limits look like. That it's at the ppt level isn't surprising.

But having it as 1% of the U levels starts investing it with some sort of Hahnemann-type voodoo--it's not the actual atoms or molecules, it's how they're compounded that makes them important and strong.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/DU/du_qaa.shtml

I found a couple of links destroying the idea that DU causes birth defects too. If you want them I will look for them.

Edit: You are mistaken about this: "it's not the actual atoms or molecules, it's how they're compounded that makes them important and strong."

The radiological hazard is a result of radioactive decay. Only decay produces radiation. The DU has a half life of 4.5 billion years which means there is VERY LITTLE decay and thus very little radiation.

It turns out that the IAEA, The WHO, the CDC and the Report to the General Assembly of the United Nations ALL conclude that this is not a significant health risk.

Now I know that the IAEA, the WHO, the CDC, and the General Assembly of the United Nations are all shills for big pharma, the nuclear power industry, the military industrial complex, the Illuminati, and the Freemasons, but sometimes, they might be right!

In 1994, CDC collaborated with the Mississippi Department of Health and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to investigate reports of adverse birth outcomes among members of two Mississippi National Guard Units that served in the Gulf War. This investigation found no increase above expected rates in the total number of birth defects or in the frequency of premature births and low birth-weight babies. The frequency of other health problems, such as respiratory infections, gastroenteritis, and skin diseases among children born to these veterans also did not appear to be elevated.

But I do doubt that they are caused by depleted uranium.

And I question whether they are significantly above the expected range.

I would like to see some evidence (other than opinion)to link DU with birth defects and some statistical evidence that the birth defects are occurring at a higher rate than normal.

Edit: The plural of anecdote is not data.

The second link is anecdotal evidence as far as I have read.

Perhaps you could save me some trouble by linking directly to the study that shows a correlation between DU and Birth defects, and the stats before and after the use of DU.

I'll get to the other links soon, but I hope there is more than just anecdotal evidence.

Regarding exposures to DU, there have been studies of the health of military personnel who saw action in the Gulf War (1990-1991) and during the Balkan conflicts (1994-99). A small number of Gulf war veterans have inoperable fragments of DU embedded in their bodies. They have been the subject of intense study and the results have been published. These veterans show elevated excretion levels of DU in urine but, so far, there have been no observable health effects due to DU in this group. There have also been epidemiological studies of the health of military personnel who saw action in conflicts where DU was used, comparing them with the health of personnel who were not in the war zones. The results of these studies have been published and the main conclusion is that the war veterans do show a small (i.e., not statistically significant) increase in mortality rates, but this excess is due to accidents rather than disease. This cannot be linked to any exposures to DU.

For information on doses and risks to miners, see:

Lubin J., Boice J.D., Edling C. et al., Radon and lung cancer risk: A joint analyses of 11 underground miners studies, US Department of Health and Human Services, NIH Publication 94-3644, Washington D.C. (1994).
For information on the health of people working with uranium, see:

McGeoghegan D. and Binks K., J Radiol Prot 20 11-137 (2000).
For information on studies of military personnel exposed or potentially exposed to DU see:

M A McDiarmid et alia, Environ. Res. A 82 168-180 (2000), G J Macfarlane et alia, The Lancet 356 17-21 (2000).

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/DU/du_qaa.shtml

you sound like you are in an apriori loop

you replied too quickly to have read my material

i was a research biologist and VERY familiar with the 'Blind eye of Science'... find one little piece of data and invalidate mountains of data..shamelessly.

your uranium article doesn't apply to DU's special circumstances

you do not appear to be the least bit objective

You don't seem to have any data.

And no, I'm not objective. I used to work in the field of radiological health and I have a very strong bias against the fear and superstition that comes from ignorance about radiation.

From what I have gathered from my recent research, there is a greater radiological risk from working in a building made of granite than from living in Iraq.

Potential health effects of exposure to depleted uranium
In the kidneys, the proximal tubules (the main filtering component of the kidney) are considered to be the main site of potential damage from chemical toxicity of uranium. There is limited information from human studies indicating that the severity of effects on kidney function and the time taken for renal function to return to normal both increase with the level of uranium exposure.
In a number of studies on uranium miners, an increased risk of lung cancer was demonstrated, but this has been attributed to exposure from radon decay products. Lung tissue damage is possible leading to a risk of lung cancer that increases with increasing radiation dose. However, because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be very much lower than for lung cancer.
Erythema (superficial inflammation of the skin) or other effects on the skin are unlikely to occur even if DU is held against the skin for long periods (weeks).
No consistent or confirmed adverse chemical effects of uranium have been reported for the skeleton or liver.
No reproductive or developmental effects have been reported in humans.
Although uranium released from embedded fragments may accumulate in the central nervous system (CNS) tissue, and some animal and human studies are suggestive of effects on CNS function, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions from the few studies reported.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

You may believe that the CDC, The IAEA, and The WHO are on the payroll of Bushco, but I don't.

Good luck with that.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to direct me to the data.

as paid consultants for the corporations they were investigating.. and being paid for part time work making more than the cdc was paying them.

the evil of BU$HITCO HAS TENTACLES DEEP EVERYWHERE

How likely is uranium to cause cancer?
Humans and animals exposed to high levels of uranium did not have higher cancer rates. The Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR IV) reported that eating food or drinking water that has normal amounts of uranium will most likely not cause cancer.

Uranium can decay into other radioactive substances, such as radium, which can cause cancer if you are exposed to enough of them for a long enough period of time. Studies have reported lung and other cancers in uranium miners; however, the miners also smoked and were exposed to other substances that cause cancer, such as radon and silica dust.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts150.html

Note: DU has all the offensive "daughters of uranium" removed. i.e. there is very little radium or radon present in DU.

Nerve agents from the 1980's, the toxic smoke of hundreds of burning oil wells following the first Gulf War, polluted water due to destroyed water treatment plants from the current war, as well as depleted uranium. To pin the spike of birth defects on depleted uranium exposure alone seems like a big jump, IMO.

be it radioactive or not. Lead is not good to inhale, e.g., American smelting and Rinfinery and poor children in south El Paso, Texas.
DU has a much higher AT.WT. than lead, mercury, etc.

that the chemical properties of DU cause problems?

Edit:As to its "heavy metal" toxicity, the closest analogy is lead. However, metallic lead has considerably higher toxicity than metallic uranium. Compounds of lead are much more hazardous than compounds of uranium since uranium tends to form relatively insoluble compounds which are not readily absorbed into the body. Also, lead within the body affects the nervous system and several biochemical processes, while the uranyl ion does not readily interfere with any major biochemical process except for depositing in the tubules of kidney where damage occurs if excess deposition occurs. Glomeruli damage has been reported at high doses as well. The kidney damage is dosage dependent and somewhat reversible. Lead bullets are probably more dangerous than uranium bullets.

source:
By Prof Otto G Raabe PhD, CHP
Institute of Toxicology & Environmental Health
University of California

http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/dutoxic010112_1_n.shtml

This is interesting, as it's in the urine. Makes one wonder what the excretion rate is- as well as what another poster alluded to- what would the expected background levels be?

Absorption of depleted uranium

About 98% of uranium entering the body via ingestion is not absorbed, but is eliminated via the faeces. Typical gut absorption rates for uranium in food and water are about 2% for soluble and about 0.2% for insoluble uranium compounds.

The fraction of uranium absorbed into the blood is generally greater following inhalation than following ingestion of the same chemical form. The fraction will also depend on the particle size distribution. For some soluble forms, more than 20% of the inhaled material could be absorbed into blood.

Of the uranium that is absorbed into the blood, approximately 70% will be filtered by the kidney and excreted in the urine within 24 hours; this amount increases to 90% within a few days.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/

they pass thru the lungs into the blood and attack the thyroid and any organ..

it is a deadly weapon of mass destruction, a crime against humanity and will cost al lot to compensate our contaminated soldiers and break the banks to compensate the innocent victoms..where these dirty bombs have also destroyed the health of forign citizens for thousands of years to come

http://bandepleteduranium.org/en/a/82.html

Good luck with that..

countries, 1000's of tons of killer toxic waste.. to profit the richest of the richest corporations... the commander in chief has approved this for his families cronies.. without concern for others suffering..

and you blindly support this.. sorry but this makes you a bigot... in your support of the unregulated use of weapons of mass destruction, a crime against humanity

i really dont see any actual real democrats that support the use of weapons of mass destruction.. only the ReThug party....

the only weapons of mass destruction found in iraq are the ones we used there, that is what you are trying to cover up.. be it de-facto out of grievous ignorance or not, makes no difference