Well ... is there indeed an increase or is this "only" based on the single and surely not independent "source" mentioned previously?
He posted data directly from a local radiation monitoring site, I don't understand what you are expecting him to do. Do you think a radiation detector in Congo can pick up radiation in the Ukraine? No, it needs to be on site.
DU is heavy and a conventional explosion would result in localised contamination.
I don't see why this comes as a surprise anyway. NATO sends radioactive ammunition to the Ukraine, Russia blows up Ukrainian ammo dumps. Those with radioactive munitions will result in localised contamination. Are NAFO deluded enough to think radioactive materiel are immune to being blown up?
Plus, isn’t depleted uranium quite weakly radioactive? All of the U-235 has been removed, and uranium in its natural state (with some u-235 mixed in) is still only really radioactive through the alpha and beta rays that it gives off, which can both be blocked by skin, and don’t travel far in air. Uranium isn’t a big gamma ray emitter.
The problem with DU is when its absorbed by the body. The body isn't good at excreting it, so it remains there for years. Once inside your body those alpha particles can do a lot of damage. As well as it being radioactive, it's highly toxic and teratogenic. Think of lead poisoning on steroids.
If the radioactive material gets into water supplies, the ground where food is grown (for animals or humans) it'll accumulate.
