Depleted uranium weapons in Iraq

[-hh]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
But there is evidence that DU spread 25 miles downwind of the munitions plant making it.

There is evidence that the micron size of the particles is significantly smaller than what your initial assumptions in this thread were based on.

I've cited the sources for that.

We have two empirical tests that contradict each other.

"Now what?"


Personally, I punt - I have no answer.

But pragmatically, I do take some solace in the empirical research that has found that adverse health effects amongst Uranium miners occur at lower frequency rates than amongst coal miners.


-hh

 

[Taft]

Originally posted by -hh

Actually, there are empirically validated Gaussian plume computer models that do exactly this type of analysis. Here's a description of one, and here's another. The third one I'm personally aware of doesn't appear to have any open literature references that I can freely cite; sorry.


-hh

I understand that these situations are modeled and studied and statistics plays a big role in calculating likelyhood of contamination. But my point is that all it takes is a single event outside of that model's capabilities to zero its worth.

(Just a side note, I work in finance modelling derivative products and the market, so I have a bit of experience in trying to predict/compensate for 2+ standard deviation moves due to unpredictable factors.)

All it takes is a shell fired into a Iraqi community where particles fall into houses instead of on the ground. Or a contaminated vehicle or gear to be brought into a populated area. Or a strange combination of heat or impact that creates particles smaller than those predicted so that they travel farther than the modeled particles. Or an extra strong wind.

All it takes is one unpredicted factor to make a model nearly useless. And the complexities of the real world are far more intricate than the markets, so I can only imagine how inaccurate these models would be in predicting the level of danger these particles pose.

My only real point is that unbiased studies need to be done to determine the dangers of DU, the causes behind the increase of cancer rates in Iraq after the Gulf War, etc. We just don't have enough information.

Taft

 

[-hh]

Originally posted by Taft
I understand that these situations are modeled and studied and statistics plays a big role in calculating likelyhood of contamination. But my point is that all it takes is a single event outside of that model's capabilities to zero its worth.

(Just a side note, I work in finance modelling derivative products and the market...

Sure. However, despite what residual data voids and uncontrolled variables that we may have, the good news here is that we are nevertheless still dealing with physics, and not wickedly mutable stuff, like...finances


-hh