3 ms·
The radiological hazard of depleted U is generally considered to by far eclipsed by its chemical toxicity. I just want people to understand that any carcinogen
by rwcarlsen 7y ago
The radiological hazard of depleted U is generally considered to by far eclipsed by its chemical toxicity. I just want people to understand that any carcinogenic affects depleted U exposure may have are far more likely to be caused by its general chemical/heavy-metal toxicity. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Radiological_hazards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Radiological_...
- cameronbrown 7y agoHow do we know that both effects can't cause damage? Say you survive exposure to chemical poisoning, later in life you may experience cancer.
- ceejayoz 7y agoWe've got a pretty good idea of what cancer rates are for various levels and types of radiation. Toxic chemicals can cause cancer themselves - poisoning isn't the only option there. Coal tar, for example, has no (or minimal) radioactivity, but is still carcinogenic.
- adrianN 7y agoWe actually have a rather poor understanding of long term effects of radiation. We have decent models for amounts of radiation that kill you over weeks, but long term low dose exposure is poorly understood.
- XorNot 7y agoHeavy metal toxicity is basically the same as radiation exposure. It's extremely hard to purge the body of heavy metals after you're exposed, and it's one of the reasons plutonium is as dangerous as it is - because it gets incorporated into your bones. It would be surprisingly safe if it just passed right through you (hence the reason it can be safely handled). You don't just "get over" heavy metal poisoning. It has long term effects exactly like radiation, and is more insidious because you can't just wave a geiger counter around to find it.
- grawprog 7y agohttps://www.globalresearch.ca/depleted-uranium-weapons-dead-babies-in-iraq-and-afghanistan-are-no-joke/15744 https://www.globalresearch.ca/depleted-uranium-weapons-dead-...