From: Michael M. Butler (mmb@spies.com)
Date: Thu Mar 13 2003 - 17:15:32 MST
On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:52:39 -0800, Charles Hixson
<charleshixsn@earthlink.net> wrote:
> appearantly they feel that during the last war the US intentionally used
> depleted uranium weapons in order to cause cancer among civilians living
> in the area. Also appearantly there is a large excess of cancers around
> the area where the depleted uranium weapons were used.
Is there any actual data to support the claim that DU in the environment
causes a measurable increase in cancers? In rats, monkeys *or* man? If so,
what are the numbers? What increase in cancer deaths at what dose, etc.?
I believe that people could believe it.
One factual predominant problem with DU is that it's a toxic metal.
It's conceivable to me that it, or its oxides or other compounds, could be
carcinogenic the way (for instance) arsenides are, so I'm not prepared to
utterly reject the notion out of hand.
It's also perfectly plausible to me that there could be some other
environmental factors to lay at the feet of any quantitative (not
anecdotal) increase in cancers.
12 years isn't a typical timeline for fullblown cancers, IIRC; 20 to 30 is
more like it. What was going on in that area back _then_?
Surely someone like the FAS ought to be trying to get hard data on this,
and that ought to move one part (the factual part) of the dialogue forward.
Of course, one could always claim that the DU used in Kuwait/Iraq was
"salted" with short-lived nuclides. At which point one either needs hard
samples, or a whistleblower who can document that, or one is stuck.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 13 2003 - 17:24:57 MST