Kansas becomes dumping ground for radioactive war waste

"Waste," of course, being relative. Soldiers probably died in most of these.



This radioactive tank sitting exposed on a flatbed railroad car in Topeka, Kansas, should have been "encapsulated," according to U.S. Army Regulation 700-48, which has the force of law. - Photo: Chris Bayruh

http://www.sfbayview.com/110905/radioactivetank110905.shtml

Radioactive Tank No. 9 comes limping home
by Bob Nichols

Across the plains of Kansas, destroyed, radioactive Abrams tanks, perched on railroad flatcars, rolled towards an uncertain future. Only one thing was certain. They would be radioactive forever. This would be their everlasting death mask. The Pentagon deceptively calls it "depleted uranium."

The Abrams tanks are constructed with a layer of radioactive uranium metal plates. The big tanks fire a giant uranium dart at 2,100 mph, much faster than an F-16 fighter aircraft, mach III to airplane pilots and very, very fast to the rest of us.

American taxpayers paid to ship the tanks to Iraq and to return them for disposal or re-building in the United States. The tanks are 12 feet wide and weigh a stout 70 tons, or 140,000 pounds.

The enduring vigorous stupidity of the U.S. military pretends that radiation is one of those things that if you can't see it, it can't hurt you. They are thoroughly delusional, of course. A National Academy of Sciences report released June 30, 2005, finds that there is no safe level of radiation. Any radiation is bad.

(snip)

Dr. Doug Rokke is the Pentagon's former director of the U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project. When contacted on Oct. 22, he viewed Chris Bayruh's photographs and made this statement about the radioactive tanks in Kansas: "The radioactive damaged Abrams tanks that were left unsecured on a Kansas railroad track are a perfect example of exactly how not to ship damaged radioactive equipment and how not to protect our Army's Abrams tanks from possible sabotage and compromise of classified battle systems."

On Oct. 10, prior to the discovery of the radioactive tanks, Dr. Rokke made the following statement. It is eerily predictive of what would happen in Kansas three days later. "U.S. Department of Defense officials continue to deny that there are any adverse health and environmental effects as a consequence of the manufacture, testing and/or use of uranium munitions to avoid liability for the willful and illegal dispersal of a radioactive toxic material - depleted uranium."

...more...

He can do no wrong.

Bush.

Kansas has not voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964.

I don't know many Kansans who voted for dubya. My city went for Kerry, so did a couple neighboring counties.

We have electronic voting - maybe that will explain how the state went red. I honestly don't know.

But since you don't know the entire state but only those in your area, how could you know? I live in a red county here. Only a few people I know voted for Kerry. I can only guess, by the numbers, most others outside my circle of friends and associates largely voted for Bush.

Granted, he kind of sucks, but he's still a Dem.

I was saying we are now Blue. We have a Democratic female governor.

Kansas has been beet red for years.

You know, "What's the Matter With Kansas?"

If Kansas *has* changed, I am so glad! :)

Tammy

:mad: :scared: :banghead:

I knew from the title of the thread that the first response would be some mindless slagging of Kansas.

There are a lot of progressives in Kansas, and a lot of them post here.

Thanks for recognizing that not all Kansans are morans.

A glowing greenish light.

Not trying to be a geek, but now we have:

"What's the matter with Kansas?"

"It's glowing, that's what."

Exactly what effects uranium radioactivity has on the human body.

After all, wasn't that partially the reason for all those nuclear tests in the 50's and 60's?

To play dumb now is simply ludicrous.

After all, why are "dirty bombs" considered dangerous? Same material, different circumstances.

The Army knows?

The Army not only doesn't give 2 chits but they notoriously don't care about safety.

Not one Army base in the US in OSHA compliant...do you know that.
Do you know how many are superfund sites?

The reason that "depleted uranium" is going to stay "radioactive forever" is that it has always been radioactive.

It has been so since the creation of the planet, in fact, before the creation of the planet, dating back to the supernova(e) that formed the elements from which we, in turn, are all formed.

Rokke has been trotting out uranium hyperbole for quite some time, referring to the Iraq war as "nuclear war" etc, etc - trivializing what nuclear war actually is. It is immediately clear that Rokke has a very poor understanding of the issue, and I am at a total loss to discover why people take him seriously. I suppose the reason is that people have a mystical self enforced ignorance of radioactivity and are inclined to believe - without much critical thinking - anything that they hear from a self declared "expert." In fact, I've had the dubious pleasure of running across the nonsense spewed by Rokke for some years - he's one of those tedious radioparanoids of the type represented by Helen Candicott, John Goffman, Ernest Sternglass and oh - did I mention Ralph Nader? - who are often cited when anti-environmental anti-nuclear energy types with to have an orgy of intercourse with the logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority."

It is wrong to inflate a trivial issue associated with war to a major issue, because it reduces rather than enhances the credibility of the anti-war position. Tank shells are immoral because they are in fact designed to commit murder, to kill people. This is true whether they are made of lead (which is more toxic than uranium), or steel, or petrified cotton. The real atrocities of war far outstrip the invented atrocities of war.

In fact, the radioactivity associated with uranium shells is relatively trivial. (The chemical toxicity is a different matter.) Depleted uranium is less radioactive than natural uranium, uranium being a ubitiquous element, about as common as tin.

About 50% of the uranium on the planet will remain slightly radioactive for the remaining lifetime of the planet - before it is swallowed in the red giant our sun will become. The only way that the radioactivity associated with uranium can be effectively eliminated before that time, which is to fission it. There is no third option.

One hopes that this uranium will ultimately be diverted to a fuel fabrication center where it can be made into MOX fuel and fissioned as part of the important struggle against global climate change.

Appreciated.

You could put your futon on a block of the stuff and sleep on it your entire life without taking any harm. However, the stuff burns, and particles of it in your lungs and other organs are not so nice.

Thanks for the great information. By some of his melodramatic statements, I wondered if he wasn't as you described.

:o

doesn't it.

Actually, we had this story on DU back in November, here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=172766 - I wondered if it would build. Some more research on condition, routes and destinations would be useful.

Also, I've noticed some recent European concern voiced about hazardous, and possibly illegal, shipments of US military hardware and materiel making use of European, eg. Spanish - Canary Islands, seaports on the way to the current theater. Now, there may also be room for some concern about 'insuficiently mitigated' hazardous cargoes such as these also presumably to be found on return-journey shipments, perhaps also using European ports along the way.

<snip> http://www.sfbayview.com/110905/radioactivetank110905.shtml

From America to Iraq and back, these giant radioactive hulks can only sicken and kill Americans. On top of the sheer, unrelenting stupidity of playing with radiation with unsuspecting soldiers, now the neo-con government is involving everyday Americans in their radiation madness.

The Pentagon can't even follow simple radiation hazard mitigation instructions. Their own rules and regulations have the force of law throughout the world. Yet they are ignored in the United States.

</snip>

They just tell em the tanks are demon possessed by intelligent design.

I believe it was the US military.

I live next door, so I have no room to talk.

:hi:

Especially in light of your post #37.

Sorry, I have an itchy trigger-finger tonight.

It was probably warranted.

Didn't mean to come off as a state basher. I don't like that behavior in others and I like it even less in myself. It was meant as a dig to the school board thing, but failed miserably.

For my neighbors:

This is DU we'r'e talking about here, very, very weak stuff in the radioactive world. It is primarily an alpha and beta emitter, whose radiation can be blocked with a blanket. The human skin will block alpha waves even. While I wouldn't want to sleep on top of a pile of this shit on a nightly basis, having it out in the middle of KS doesn't bother me, at least not for the radioactive reasons.

DU is more of a threat due to heavy metal poisoning than anything else. Having this stuff leach into the ground is probably not a wise idea, especially if you're going to grow crops or graze animals on the land later. Hopefully they will move this DU before the leaching starts to take place.

DU is such a problem in Iraq and elsewhere because DU tipped shells blow up, particlizing the DU and allowing it to get inside the human body via inhalation or ingestion. That is when you can really be harmed by the stuff. DU in the body can cause damage through radiation, since there is no protective skin to interfere and block the emissions. And it also causes damage due to heavy metal poisoning.

But large intact chunks in the middle of Kansas? No big deal as long as it isn't blown up, and they don't allow it to start leaching into the ground.

They are sitting on the railroad tracks in Topeka, a heavily populated area, which is in EASTERN Kansas.

DU in the form of which they speak is a non-threat. There is very, very little radiation, and what radiation there is will be blocked by your skin. The only time when DU is a threat is when it is blown up, and thus can be inhaled and ingested. That's when the real fun begins. But a solid block of the stuff is a non-story. The worst that can happen is that it leeches into the ground, and thus you have the problems assosiated with any other heavy metal. But that takes years.

So long as it was prevented from leeching into the ground(a precaution I would take with any heavy metal, including lead), I would have no problem with a block of DU in my backyard. We are talking nano-curies here in terms of radiation exposure friend, less than what you get from exposure to sunlight. If you smoked a pack of cigarettes in a day, you would be receiving more radiation exposure.

I work with this stuff, for I work at a research reactor, I know what is and is not dangerous about it. And like I've said before, DU is not a danger unless it is exploded and put into a particulate form, that is when the problems start. But getting all worked up over some DU sitting where-ever in a train yard is just a non-issue. You're getting yourself worked up for no good reason, making yourself look foolish in the process, and de-legitimizing those of us who are working to remove DU as the battlefield threat it is. Please, please, educate yourself to better deal with this issue, and learn when and where to pick your battles. Contact the local media about the troops coming home to KC and Topeka with DU sickness from inhaling DU dust, but don't trivialize it by getting worked up over DU in solid form, OK.

over time why not the air? how do we know how clean they are of radioactive particles from when they where hit?

but besides kansas we are actually using this stuff in dirty bombs daily in a whole country that NEVER threatened or attacked us.

i'd say it is a subject to get at least passionate about.

peace

Unless you're going to stand there and shoot tank shells at it traveling 2,000 meters a second or blow it up with TNT, it's not going to end up in the air if it's in solid form. If you blow it up though, the smoke is how it's going to get into the air. That's when you're in trouble, especially if you're downwind.

into the water over time as the metal breaks down in the open environment.

these wrecks some of them have been blown up/atomized do you feel comfortable that this gov is on top of this after everything we have witnessed?

i'd say this is something to get worked up over especially since it is still being used in DIRTY BOMBS in Iraq daily.

:hi:

peace

And it would take a looong while for rain to do so under normal circumstances. And if the DU is protected, either with a cover or paint, then leeching isn't a problem.

And yes, I agree what we're using DU for over in Iraq is wrong. It is a slow motion genocide that is going to continue to adversely effect the Iraqi people for generations, not to mention our own soldiers. That is the issue that we should be addressing, not getting worked up over a chunk of the stuff sitting in KS.

Pick the battles you wish to fight carefully, otherwise you wind up looking like a fool. Getting worked up over DU in KS is one of those issues that will make you look like a fool, and detract from the real struggle, which is to remove DU from America's arsenal.

Unfortunately, a LOT of disinformation about DU has been spread by opponents of the war. While perhaps well intentioned, the ultimate effect is to discredit the left. I read the article that was linked and it is not designed to inform but rather to inflame.

The longer the half life of a substance - the MORE stable it is, and the less dangerous. At 4,500,000,000 years half-life, DU is extremely stable. The decay rate is so slow that it takes that long for half of it to decay. You could carry some around in your pocket all your life and not be harmed.

The dangerous stuff has half-lives that are measured in hours and days.

However, DU is a heavy metal, and heavy metal poisoning is a different item.

near YOUR house?

So hysteria-mongering on that subject has no effect on me.

we've seen in Iraqi children?

But the radiation released by DU probably plays a minor role in them. Uranium, just like lead, is a heavy metal, and heavy metals cause birth defects. That, combined with the chemicals released by the burning of the oil wells and the uncontained destruction of chemical weapons stockpiles in the first Gulf War are probably more than enough to cause birth defects for generations to come.

Where are the 'insurgents' getting the depleted uranium?

It's very hard and very heavy, making it ideal for stopping incoming rounds. Unfortunately, the undercarriage usually isn't as well-armored, leaving the tanks vulnerable to anti-tank mines. Once the tank is destroyed, what's left is shipped back to the US, DU armor and all. The insurgents aren't shooting depleted uranium; it's built into the tanks themselves.

I appreciate the info :hi:

here in KC. One from a TV station and the other is the environmental reporter from The KC Star. Both emailed me back thanking me and both said they had no idea that this was happening, but would look into it.

Now a month later - you guessed it. NOTHING. No report on the TV station, nothing in The Star.

If you have any ideas about how we can persuade our local media to tell this story, please share them with me. MuseRider is in Topeka, I am in KC. We are both very upset about this and don't understand why the media is keeping it from their readers and viewers.

DU, in the form that this report is talking about is pretty damn harmless. The biggest threat is posed by leaching into the ground, but that will take years, and from the sound of this article, this storage in KS is a temporary deal. The radiation issue is a complete non-starter, due to DU's very, very low level of radiation.

The problems with DU come when is used to tip shells and is subsequently exploded. DU dust then gets everywhere, including into the ground and into people. That's when the real damage is done. But sitting out in the middle of a Kansas plain, it isn't going to do any harm to anybody.

The article I sent the reporters in November said they are on the tracks in Topeka. How many people live in Topeka?

You can't call Topeka the middle of a Kansas plain.

Physics is not subject to anybody's politics. It just is. And the facts are that DU in block form is harmless. You probably get more radiation exposure living in a house made of granite stone. Remember radon gas?

There is more than enough reason to get upset over the real dangers of DU. No need to get hysterical over non-issues like this one.

We don't trust our current administration to keep us safe. I wouldn't put poisoning the state of Kansas past the Bush adminstration, would you?

Before I start screaming about it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to trivialize what you say, but one thing I've noticed in my life is that sometimes people get the most upset about the least of threats. Thus I have always made it my personal rule to educate myself on whatever the subject is before I get all worked up.

And please don't misunderstand me, I'm plenty pissed about what DU is doing over in Iraq, both to the Iraqis and our soldiers. Our soldiers are coming home sick and dying from the shit, and quite frankly I consider DU to be a slow motion genocide in Iraq. But that is because we keep blowing the shit up into dust, and coating the whole country in it. This particular war crime is going to make the landmine problem seem like tiddlywinks before it is all said and done. That is why I'm working hard on this issue with a number of people I know.

But getting worked up over DU in solid form sitting anywhere in the US is simply a non-starter with me, since I know and understand what the threats, and lack there-of, are from DU. I personally feel that if we blow this non-issue all out of proportion now, people will just close their minds off when they hear about DU again, and that is a bad thing.

You've got to pick and choose what to get upset over. If you get all worked up over something that is a non-issue, people aren't going to pay attention to you the next time even if what you have to say is a huge issue.

All I am trying to say is that I don't trust the govt to NOT poison us.

For those of us who don't, there is a level of trust we just can't conjure up. I understand now that this DU is apparently not a threat and I thank you all for explaining that to me.

But 10 years ago, if I had heard this story, I would have first assumed there would be no way my govt would allow a poison to sit in a railroad car on the tracks in a large city. Today, I no longer have that trust. So I automatically assume it IS a danger.

who you foolin?

they were sitting on a track about 3 miles from my farm in an area that was once AFB housing and is heavily populated. I did not know what they were until after I saw the pictures because they don't look like tanks anymore but I did wonder because they were new there. They were gone after I saw the article and went back to take pictures. So they are or were not in the middle of the prairie.

Just what does it take to shake it up enough to become dangerous? Constant shaking from the constant trains that go by? Big winds? Tornados? Does it have to be exploded? I honestly don't know but I do worry about it getting into the ground and then into the water table. They were upstream from my farm and I have worked very hard to keep my ponds clean, not easy in farm country. Those were things that I worried about personally. I also worried when I read that they took pictures of children playing on them. Really, that just can't be good can it?

I have been gone much of the last two weeks and will not be back here much with all the work going on right now. If you answer I may not be back to see it until later so thanks ahead of time.

It is used inside the tanks, not outside. Even a tornado won't bother them, not even an F-5.

I still do not care for the idea but I really appreciate you answering that question. I had no idea the DU was inside the tank.

Is that why Senator Pat Roberts is such an A$$

Jesus Christ... what a bunch of incompetent negligent evil bastards! Merry fuckin' Christmas to you too fuck nuts!

As an M1A1 Abrams tank crewman in the Army, I taught vehicle recognition classes to my fellow soldiers. The vehicle in the picture doesn't look like an M1A1; it looks like a Soviet-made MTLB, which was a reconnaisance and personnel vehicle. Debris left over from the Iraqi Army's defeat? :shrug:

a better place. They'll really have some "creationism" to talk about in a few K years!

peace

New Mexico's been the nuclear armpit of the US government for decades.

It isn't whether or not depleted U is dangerous, it's whether or not we want to set a precedent of dumping potentially hazardous material in Kansas... While one traveling through the state may perceive it as a bunch of prairie, in fact it's a bunch of grain... How much radiation do you want to eat next year?... How about the year after that, as weapons systems become hotter? And for those of you who want DU tanks in your neighborhood, I'm sure there will be plenty to go around before we get out of Iraq and the government will furnish little glowing skeletons inside at no extra charge.

It is dangerous because it is a heavy metal, not because it creates "little glowing skeletons" of tanks.

"How about the year after that, as weapons systems become hotter?"

If by hotter you mean more radioactive, materials like uranium decrease in radioactivity over time, not increase. Thus, these would become "cooler" with time. And since DU produces very, very little radiation in the first place, this is a non-issue. It has a half-life of several billion years. This alone should tell you just how non-radioactive it is.

If they dumped 20-ton blocks of pure lead in place of the depleted uranium, would there be this concern? Lead poisoning and depleted uranium poisoning produce the same results when ingested or inhaled.

What I mean is, where do we dispose of abandoned weapons systems that yield more radiation in the not-so-distant future.... It's kinda like erosion, which always starts with a trickle or, worse yet, the erosion of freedom. Someone wiser than me once wrote: "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that you have to spend much of your life defending sons-of-bitches."

-- H.L. Mencken