"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties. Truth was never put to the worse in a free and open encounter..."
~ Milton
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
~Benjamin Franklin

A Fistful of Euros
Andrew Tobias
Angry Liberal
Bad Attitudes
Common Dreams
Informed Comment
Madelaine Kane
Obsidian Wings
Off the Kuff
Sarah Kendzior
War and Piece
Washington Monthly

The Emerging Democratic Majority (Judis & Teixeira)
Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them (Franken)
Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot (Franken)
The True Believer (Hoffer)
Still Being Bushwhacked

All Book Reviews
Race, Gender, and Sexuality
It's always "us" vs "them"
Women's March on (fill in your location)
Children learn what their parents teach them.
You Got My Support. But.
Even Endangered Penguins Do It

All Race, Gender, and Sexuality
Campaigns and Voting
Where do we go from here?
It's always "us" vs "them"
Some interpretations
On and on I go
Just appalled

All Campaigns and Voting
Lecture Circuit
It Was 40 Years Ago Today
July 2, 1964
May 14-15, 1970
The Erotica of Bare Knees

All Lecture Circuit
The Liberal Media, At It Again
Fairly UNbalanced
What's this?

All Media
Big Brother
Shoulda' Guessed
Where did my country go?
You know what you never thought you'd read?
Not in his name
Sleight of Hand

All Big Brother
World O'Blog
It's Vocabulary Time!
They wrote it
Mighty-fine blogging
Other People Said....

All World O'Blog
Aimless Ranting
It's always "us" vs "them"
So, I'm thinking with half my brain
Do You Know Peter?
Long, Little Privacy Rant
My Takeaway

All Aimless Ranting
February 05, 2017 - February 11, 2017
January 22, 2017 - January 28, 2017
January 15, 2017 - January 21, 2017
November 13, 2016 - November 19, 2016
October 09, 2016 - October 15, 2016

All Weekly Archives

Open Secrets
Political Wire Exit Polls
Polling Report

American Research Group
Center for Democracy and Technology
Center for Public Integrity
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Congressional Report Cards
Death Row Roll Call
Democracy Now
Economic Policy Institute
FairVote Colorado
Foreign Policy In Focus
Global Exchange
Human Rights Watch
Independent Judiciary
Institute on Money in State Politics
Institute for Public Accuracy
Lying in ponds
Media Reform
Media Transparency
Move On
One World
Open Democracy
Pew Research Center
Project Censored
Public Citizen Health Research Group
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Take Back The Media
The Urban Institute
WHO Outbreak News

Peevish for PDA

Blog Directory


Powered by Movable Type

Site Design by Sekimori

All content © 2002-2005 Anne Zook

February 20, 2006
That'll shock 'em

We shocked and awed the Gulf in 2003. Is the U.K. getting the fallout?

UK radiation jump blamed on Iraq shells

RADIATION detectors in Britain recorded a fourfold increase in uranium levels in the atmosphere after the “shock and awe” bombing campaign against Iraq, according to a report.

The government says its a coincidence or from local sources, although they don't seem to have any suggestions about who might be playing with loose uranium in the neighborhood.

Posted by AnneZook at 07:25 PM


Since depleted uranium isn't remotely significantly radioactive (in short, that's what the "depleted" means -- slightly longer version is that it's what left when you remove most of the tiny amount of the dangerous U235 from the U238 -- it's less radioactive than the harmless uranium you can find in the ground), that wouldn't make much sense.

Depleted uranium is toxic inside the human body because it's chemically toxic, like lead, not because it's radioactive. Short version (you don't want the long version, in all likelihood).

Quick cite: the Federation of American Scientists is, as you presumably know, a left-wing, governmentally-skeptical, organization.

Generally speaking, if a news item is talking about radiation, run it past a scientific source if you have any questions. And anything that talks about "uranium" without specifying an isotope and a purity level and a rem count is almost certainly crap.

Depleted uranium only emits alpha particles. (Which are harmless; sunlight is more dangerous; alpha particles won't even pentrate human skin.)

On depleted uranium, the US and UK governments are actually taking a sound position as regards radiation danger, although the question of chemical toxicity exposure is something of a different question. But you're not going to get a significant amount of depleted uranium floating through the air from the Middle East to Britain, any more, again, than you'd have to worry about getting lead poisoning that way. It's, uh, nuts. More reasonable to worry about ghosts and goblins.

On the other hand, if you have uranium dust in heavy concentrations in your air, you don't want to breath it in, again, any more than you'd want to breath in similar lead concentrations, or mercury concentrations. Because it's chemically toxic. Not because it's "radioactive."

And then if we wanted to start discussing what levels of concentration are toxic, it starts to get a bit complicated.

But people go nuts when they hear something is "radioactive," without realizing that I'm radioactive, you're radioactive, your keyboard is radioactive, trees are radioactive, rocks are radioactive, everything is radioactive. It's specifics that matter. What kind of particles? What's the emission rate? Etc.

It would be nice if most people had a basic set of clues about basic science, but I have an active fantasy life. Most people couldn't explain a grade school concept like what the difference is between a beta particle and a gamma ray and a radiowave if radio waves were passing through their body at the moment they were asked. Or explain what the electromagnetic spectrum is. Etc. But, then, I'm not sure how many people could say what Newton's Three Laws of Motion are, either.

Posted by: Gary Farber at February 20, 2006 10:10 PM

Generally speaking, if a news item is talking about radiation, run it past a scientific source if you have any questions.

I don't know any radiation scientists. :)

It would be nice if most people had a basic set of clues about basic science, but I have an active fantasy life.

I'm better at non-nuclear physics. (Not that I'm claiming any extraordinary knowledge.) And I know a bit of biology. And some geology. And a tiny bit about anthropology.

Chemistry, microbiology, biochemistry, genetics, and a lot of other fields of science are closed books to me.

Anything nuclear just leaves me blinking. We can't all be rocket scientists.

Posted by: Anne at February 21, 2006 10:26 PM

"We can't all be rocket scientists."

I don't even have a full year of college, myself.

Posted by: Gary Farber at February 22, 2006 08:20 PM