depleted uranium (thing)

Most of my evidence for this writeup comes from a Washington Post article by David Brown, dated January 28, 2001, entitled "Risks from Uranium Limited, Experts Say." It was buried on page 20. I won't burden you with the whole cut-and-paste text, because you can look it up yourself if you really want to.

• Long-term exposure to natural uranium (which is more radioactive than depleted uranium) doesn't affect one's risk of leukemia or lung cancer; several medical studies are quoted. The implication is that depleted uranium, which is less radioactive, is even less likely to cause such problems.
• Of the 60 people with DU shell fragments in their skin and bones from the Gulf War, none have developed leukemia or any other kind of cancer, and they have fathered 38 children collectively. That was ten years ago; if they're still healthy, this Balkans Syndrome (or BS, as I like to call it) is just a media fairy tale.
• Since 1940, a dozen studies following 78,000 people working in uranium mills (where uranium dust is in the air constantly) have been published, and none has found an increase in cancer or other serious illness. The exposure level of these workers is much higher than anything that would occur in the Balkans.
• People with exposure to alpha particle-emitting isotopes show no overall increase in leukemia, the disease which DU reportedly caused in the Balkans. The best evidence is a study of women who painted radium on luminous watch dials in the 1920's: they had huge increases in other cancers, but no excess leukemia, because alpha particles simply can't get through bone to the marrow, where leukemia starts.

Also, a few more facts regarding the composition and density of DU: it's mostly U-238, which is the least radioactive isotope of uranium. U-235 and U-234, the highly radioactive ones, are used for reactor fuel, and are less dense than U-238; there is a performance incentive to make DU as radioactively inert as possible, because this increases its density.

If you really want to know why Spain, Italy, and the Netherlands are protesting the use of DU munitions, look at which countries proposed and supported (strongly) a European Rapid Reaction Force--NATO without America, Canada, or Great Britain--at the time of the first DU articles. The DU scare may just be politicized hype. It could be that it's designed to demonize America, and divide NATO along a very carefully thought-out line. Countries with a vested interest in removing American influence from Europe are likely to support and amplify this rumour; countries who don't believe it have no choice but to keep quiet for months while performing medical studies. You don't need proof to go to press with a story that says "possible," but you do need proof if you say "improbable." It's an easy trap to set; by the time we've proven depleted uranium is mostly harmless, nobody will care. Well, it hasn't been proven, but it looks more and more like depleted uranium is basically incapable of causing leukemia outbreaks.

It helps to remember that the media make money when they sell papers or hook viewers. Stories about things being found "harmless" aren't nearly as riveting as those that promise to tell you "the truth about what common household item could kill you -- next!" Uranium is a scary word because it implies that harmful radiation is present. As long as you differentiate between claims that "it's uranium: how can it NOT be bad?" and claims that it is a potentially harmful heavy metal, you'll be on your way to understanding the truth about DU.

To sum up: I wouldn't let your kids go chewing on the stuff. Depleted uranium is still uranium (a heavy metal) and probably is at least as bad for you as lead when ingested.