Editing Depleted uranium (section)

===Radiological hazards===
Available evidence suggests that the radiation risk is small relative to the chemical hazard.<ref name=Miller2/> The primary radiation from pure depleted uranium is due to [[alpha particle]]s, which do not travel far through air and do not penetrate clothing and skin. However, as [[uranium-238]] decays into its daughter nuclei from its [[decay series]], pure depleted uranium will generate [[thorium-234]] (half-life of ~24 days) followed by [[protactinium-234]] (half life of ~7 hours), which emit more penetrating [[beta particle]]s at almost the same rate as the uranium emits alpha particles. Total activity then settles to a plateau as the more stable isotope [[uranium-234]] accumulates. A quasi-steady state of roughly 3 times the initial activity is reached within months.<ref group=notes>The amounts of both thorium-234 and protactinium-234 after the first days and for millions of years thereafter will be approximately proportional to 1–2<sup> −t / (24 days)</sup>. See {{cite book|author1=Krane, Kenneth S. |title=Introductory Nuclear Physics|date=1988|publisher=John Wiley & Sons |isbn=978-0-471-80553-3}}</ref> Once an equilibrium level of uranium-234 (and its 11 shorter-lived daughter nuclei) has built up after about a million years there will be another radiation plateau at about 14 times the initial activity, finally reaching levels comparable to natural uranium.<ref name="d563">{{cite web | title=Uranium Radiation Properties | website=WISE Uranium Project | date=2024-01-26 | url=https://www.wise-uranium.org/rup.html | access-date=2024-06-20}}</ref>

According to the [[World Health Organization]], [[Ionizing radiation|radiation]] [[Dose (biochemistry)|dose]] from DU would be about 60% of that from purified natural uranium with the same mass; the [[radiological]] dangers are lower due to its longer half-life and the removal of the more radioactive isotopes.

Surveying the veteran-related evidence pertaining to the Gulf War, a 2001 editorial in the ''[[BMJ]]'' concluded that it was not possible to justify claims of radiation-induced lung cancer and leukaemia in veterans of that conflict.<ref name = "McDiarmid 2001 123"/> While agreeing with the editorial's conclusion, a reply noted that its finding in the negative was guaranteed, given that "global dose estimates or results of mathematical modelling are too inaccurate to be used as dose values for an individual veteran", and that, as of April 2001, no practical method of measuring the expected small doses that each individual veteran would receive had been suggested.<ref group=notes name = "Mould 2001">{{Harvnb|Mould|2001}}. Mould's suggestion was [[electron paramagnetic resonance]] [[dosimetry]] using tooth enamel. He also wrote that the US [[National Institute of Standards and Technology]] was able, using this method, to measure doses as low as 20&nbsp;mSv, and that, if it were asked to, the NIST would be able to get involved, meaning at least one centre could help undertake a screening programme for veterans.</ref> The author of the reply, a radiation scientist, went on to suggest a method that had been used several times before, including after the 1986 Chernobyl accident.<ref group=notes name = "Mould 2001"/> Despite the widespread use of DU in the [[Iraq War]], at least a year after the conflict began, testing of UK troops was still only in the discussion phase.<ref group=notes name = "GIUHW 2004">{{Harvnb|Greenberg|Iversen|Unwin|Hull|2004}}, which found that perhaps a quarter of all UK troops would have been interested in undergoing DU-related monitoring, although "the desire for DU screening is more closely linked to current health status rather than plausible exposure to DU."<p>Confusingly, {{Harvnb|Moszynski|2003}} reports that "testing is now available to all troops that served in Iraq", and does not say if this is testing à la Mould.</p></ref>

The Royal Society Working Group on the Health Hazards of Depleted Uranium Munitions (RSDUWG) concluded in 2002 that there were "very low" health risks associated with the use of depleted uranium, though it also ventured that, "[i]n extreme conditions and under worst-case assumptions" lung and kidney damage could occur, and that in "worst-case scenarios high local levels of uranium could occur in food or water that could have adverse effects on the kidney".<ref name=Patel/><ref name=Murphy2009/> In 2003, the Royal Society issued another urgent call to investigate the actual health and environmental impact of depleted uranium.<ref group=notes name = "Moszynski 2003 a"/> The same year, a [[cohort study]] of Gulf War veterans found no elevated risks of cancer generally, nor of any specific cancers in particular, though recommended follow up studies.<ref name=Macfarlane/>