Ännu en mp tomte är på villovägar
Han påstår att utarmat uran är en radiologisk riskfaktor. Visst är uran radioaktivt men väldigt svagt radioaktivt. Dess största fara är på grund av att det är en giftig tungmetall, inte att det är radioaktivt.
Vad är sanningen då?
Från IAEA
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/DU/du_qaa.shtml#q8
Studies of workers exposed to uranium in the nuclear fuel cycle have also been carried out. There are some reported excesses of cancers but, unlike the miners, no correlation with exposure can be seen. The main finding of these studies has been that the health of workers is better than the average population. This "healthy worker effect" is thought to be due to the selection process inherent in employment and to the overall benefits of employment.
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.
There have been a number of studies of workers exposed to uranium (see question 8) and, despite some workers being exposed to large amounts of uranium, there is no evidence that either natural uranium or DU is carcinogenic. This lack of evidence is seen even for lung cancer following inhalation of uranium. As a precaution for risk assessment and to set dose limits, DU is assumed to be potentially carcinogenic, but the lack of evidence for a definite cancer risk in studies over many decades is significant and should put the results of assessments in perspective.
Och från en artikel om DU(Depleted uranium) publicerat i Science and global security
Fetter, S., von Hippel, F.N. 2000. The Hazard Posed by Depleted Uranium Munitions. Vol. 8, 2:125-161.
http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/publications/SciGloSec.shtml
Even in the area immediately surrounding a vehicle destroyed by DU munitions, the dose rate
from external radiation is unlikely to exceed 30 millirem per year ? one tenth the natural background dose rate.
If 300 tons of DU was dispersed over an area with an average population density of 50 per square kilometer, the population dose rate would be about 20 person-rem per year. Over a 50-year period, the total population dose would be roughly 200 person-rem. According to the linear hypothesis, this dose would result in 0.1 cancer deaths?in other words, a ten percent chance that one person would die of cancer.
Va kan man dra för slutsatser av det? Endast en. Utarmat uran är ingen strålningsrisk whatsoever om man inte kör upp ett kilo i röven. Att påstå att det är en strålningsrisk är ignorant. Men utarmat uran är en tungmetall och giftig. Man ska alltså inte gå och slicka på sönderskjutna stridsvagnar i mellanöstern. Bästa vore givetvis att ingen springer runt och försöker skjuta ihjäl varandra överhuvudtaget. Då behövs inte utarmat uran som vapen överhuvudtaget.