Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by reacweb 2434 days ago
All these images are terrible, but it doesn't match my understanding of radioactivity. I thought the lessons learned from Hiroshima and Nagazaki was that radioactivity was causing very few mutations (far less than expected), but instead was causing mainly sterilities. I am not an expert, but teratogene effects are generally caused by chemical products. If uranium is similar to lead, it should cause neurologic diseases, not this kind of pictures.

I do not want to minimize the consequences of war, but this article has no plausibility.
1 comments
Recurecur 2434 days ago
Agreed. It's much more likely the deformities are the result of chemical exposure or other factors. The scary sounding "4.5 billion year half life" of DU is synonymous with it not being very radioactive at all.

DU is toxic, but the main hazard is inhaling the dust. That's likely not a big issue unless you're near impacting rounds...

link
saiya-jin 2433 days ago
What the heck? The article clearly says: Every round of DU ammunition leaves a residue of uranium dust on everything it hits.

We talk about semi-desert environment where dust flies all around, and it doesn't become easily locked in soil like in more humid environment. If you live a kilometer downwind from place where an A-10 smashed some iraqi tanks with DU ammunition, you have clear source of exposure.

link
Recurecur 2432 days ago
>If you live a kilometer downwind from place where an A-10 smashed some iraqi tanks with DU ammunition, you have clear source of exposure.

Sure, depending on how well the extremely dense (1.7x the density of lead, remember?) dust remains airborne. Also, the dust concentration is likely to be so low that far away that it's extremely low exposure.

Don't lose sight of the fact that the article provides zero factual evidence that DU caused those deformities. It's strictly guilt through association.

link