That Manhattan Project Document on Aerosolized Uranium
Once every few weeks, people who want to portray depleted uranium as the most dangerous substance on the face of the Earth trot out a document from the Manhattan Project stating that uranium could be aerosolized and used as a radiological weapon.
This happened recently, and doesn't have anything to do with what we know about uranium's radiotoxicity today. It doesn't prove any conspiracy theories and doesn't make uranium magically increase its radioactivity when aerosolized.
For the record.
This happened recently, and doesn't have anything to do with what we know about uranium's radiotoxicity today. It doesn't prove any conspiracy theories and doesn't make uranium magically increase its radioactivity when aerosolized.
For the record.
Labels: Applications, Conspiracy, Non Sequitur
posted by Stewart Peterson at
12:51 PM
5 Comments:
Actually that Manhattan Project document doesn't mention uranium; and the hypothetical weapon described would be virtually useless if the radioactive substance used was uranium.
By
Joffan, at Tue Jun 12, 12:55:00 PM CDT
Obviously uranium is the last material you would use.
Isn't it also a violation of the Geneva Conventions?
By
Stewart Peterson, at Tue Jun 12, 03:50:00 PM CDT
The discussion document was not concerned with the Geneva Convention but with what weapons might possibly be faced and feasible responses.
I'd rather be protected by physics than treaties; and reality says that both natural and depleted uranium are more chemotoxic than radiotoxic, with toxicity roughly similar to lead.
My bet is that there was a lot more lead than uranium used and discarded in any conflict you care to mention, and that remnant explosives are much more of a hazard to locals post-conflict.
Of course the idea that depleted uranium drifting from Iraq is a toxic problem in Britain is totally laughable, but still people believe it.
By
Joffan, at Thu Jun 14, 11:14:00 AM CDT
The article "Uranium bombing in Iraq contaminates Europe" cites authors such as Chris Busby and Ward Churchill.
A review of Busby's work indicates 2 things: 1) he is clearly opposed to radioactive materials in any form and such blatant bias in a researcher automatically makes the work suspect; and 2) most of his work is correlative not causal. As a correlative example, I could say: Colorado has a lower leukemia incident (fact) and a higher background radiation level (fact), therefore radiation is good for you. The correlation is correct but means nothing as there could be a thousand other factors that are causal for the lower leukemia incident. Busby's correlations have no meaning.
Regarding Ward Churchill, he was fired from the U of Colorado this last month for academic misconduct ( a serious charge that rarely happens in the academic world). Essentially he was making up things in his works.
If the author of "Uranium bombing in Iraq contaminates Europe" chooses to side with researchers who have no credibility, then what credibility should I put in the article? (a rhetorical question) -lg
By
Larry Grimm, at Wed Aug 15, 11:34:00 AM CDT
One other comment on the article 'Uranium bombing in Iraq contaminates Europe". Under the presumption that depleted uranium from Iraq did reach Europe (which I doubt without seeing a decent scientific paper) the number of atoms would be miniscule. What most people don't realize is that for a long lived nuclide, if there are only a couple of atoms ingested, then the odds are extremely high that the atoms won't emit radiation during the person's lifetime. No emission, no harm. -lg
By
Larry Grimm, at Wed Aug 15, 12:11:00 PM CDT
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home