Depleted Uranium

I found this while surfing the internet.

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2003/546/546p17.htm

What do you think about this? I'll wait to post my thoughts

I know depleted uraniun cant be good for you- but I also doubt it's near as bad as they'd have you think.

:no:

I found out about this stuff a couple of years ago when I read an article about health problems related to DU munition in Yugoslavia, and was shocked to find out how few people actually know about this. It should be widely known. DU munitions should be banned. :rtwno:

I was hoping more people would bite on this topic but oh well. My stand on it is that DU munitions should be banned from use like Kralizec said. There harmful pretty dangerous from what I've read about them. If anyone has more sites you should post them.

mehness. You don't want to breathe in the stuff, and handling it for long periods is a bad idea since it does all the bad stuff that lead does only more so. About banning? I don't really care, although I remeber reading about some tungston alloy that is just as hard.

Ok, DU is superior to tungsten, because although tungsten is hard, it tends to flatten itself out into a pancake,DU on the other hand sharpens itself as it burrows in, and when it finishes drilling through the target, the inside of the target will be sprayed with flaming DU dust, ventilating it completely.

Quote:

---

Each weapon system that uses DU has undergone extensive developmental testing and evaluation. As part of that process, DOD evaluates possible alternative metal alloys considering operational requirements and medical/environmental impacts. As improvements have been made in the "hardness" of armored vehicles, tests have demonstrated that DU offers superior performance to all other alloys.

---

Until we find something better, no.

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/faq_17apr.htm

You know with any article that comes from a publication with the words 'Green' and 'left' in the title and features an image of Che Guevara as the romanticised hero, that you have to take it's 'facts' with a pinch of salt. I'm not saying they're not right on this issue, but when something is presented so one-sided, it irks me to say the least. Almost makes me want to find some right-wing army nut to get their opinion on the matter, just to get a sense of balance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Csar

If anyone has more sites you should post them.

---

Here's one for balance. And Here is one that originally appeared in the Washington Post. Here's a sample:

Quote:

---

There is theoretically a cancer risk if a person ingests uranium dust, but the amount required would be huge, said Raymond A. Guilmette, a radiobiologist at Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute in Albuquerque.

He calculated that a person would have to eat 100 micrograms of depleted uranium -- mixed with dirt, this would amount to about a half teaspoon -- every day for 50 years to get just one one-thousandth of the radiation dose experienced, on average, by nuclear industry workers. A recent study of 100,000 such workers from three countries found a slight increase in leukemia and no increase in other forms of cancer.

Inhalation is the other potentially hazardous route of exposure to depleted uranium dust.

Studies of uranium miners from the 1940s and 1950s, who were exposed to both radon gas and uranium dust, found an increase in lung cancer (especially in smokers) decades after exposure, but no increases in leukemia, lymphoma or other cancers. Recently, a study in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute found no relationship between acute lymphoblastic leukemia -- the most common childhood cancer -- and household levels of radon.

---

DA, you sir are WRONG!!! sort of anyway

Quote:

---

Amorphous tungsten alloy has many of the properties that make DU such an effective penetrator: it is self-sharpening and it should also be pyrophoric, says Steve Collier, president of Liquidmetal's defence arm.

The new contract is for a test batch of 30-millimetre ammunition of the type used by American A-10 "tank buster" aircraft, which fired some 75 tonnes of DU during the recent Iraq conflict.

---

Glad there are more people talking about this now makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside :)

Exactley the reason why the A-10 Warthog uses DU Shells for it's GAU-8 Autocannon. God I love seeing those things in Practice at Edwards AFB. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by discovery1

DA, you sir are WRONG!!! sort of anyway

---

Amorphous tungsten indeed has many of the properties of depleted Uranium, as does Nanocrystalline tungsten materials (which, by the way, is superior in density and structural integrity to amorphous tungsten). One property it doesn't have is low cost. Pouring and milling and forging the penetrators would cost a fortune (it's not just a simple spike, it has be to milled into a single big crystal in order to go through the adiabatic shear banding, otherwise it would simply snap in two after twisting around a couple of times in the armor.)

http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/papers/symp_19/VM05(913.pdf

Nanocrystalline tungsten for you. God I love that stuff, especially with the correct type of jacketing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemonArchangel

Amorphous tungsten indeed has many of the properties of depleted Uranium, as does Nanocrystalline tungsten materials (which, by the way, is superior in density and structural integrity to amorphous tungsten). One property it doesn't have is low cost. Pouring and milling and forging the penetrators would cost a fortune (it's not just a simple spike, it has be to milled into a single big crystal in order to go through the adiabatic shear banding, otherwise it would simply snap in two after twisting around a couple of times in the armor.)

http://ciar.org/ttk/mbt/papers/symp_19/VM05(913.pdf

Nanocrystalline tungsten for you. God I love that stuff, especially with the correct type of jacketing.

---

Hm, good point. And good reply too. The link doesn't work btw.

argh, sorry about the link, i'll redo it later.

Wait, wait...you're saying that bullets should be banned because they're hazardous to your health? :inquisitive: Essentially what we're talking about is lead and even standard lead is poisonous to life. One of the elements uranium decomposes to is lead so isn’t all lead depleted uranium? It's just absurd that anyone would think of banning DU. Why don't we just ban rocket propellant and gunpowder because it's toxic if eaten and bad for the environment? :laugh4:

Yes, well anyway, another good reason to develop directed energy weapons (free electron or otherwise).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

Exactley the reason why the A-10 Warthog uses DU Shells for it's GAU-8 Autocannon. God I love seeing those things in Practice at Edwards AFB. :2thumbsup:

---

There is (was? Its been a while) a group of them stationed in Battle Creek, MI close to where I grew up. It was always very cool to see them flying around. Fantastic plane that has (figuratively) put a DU round into those who thought it had outlived its usefulness years ago. GO A-10!!

Personally I have no real issue with the use of the DU rounds as long as they are handled correctly. I would recommend not handing them out to children or rubbing them on your genitals but if you are doing something that causes us to shoot at you I could care less if you are injured by the lingering effects of the weapon. Just another reason not to f with us. I also think we should coat our bullets with some kind of poison (perhaps stingray because of its recent newsworthyness) so that when we shoot you it hurts more. :smartass:

PS – Chelation removes heavy metals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou's article

He calculated that a person would have to eat 100 micrograms of depleted uranium -- mixed with dirt, this would amount to about a half teaspoon -- every day for 50 years to get just one one-thousandth of the radiation dose experienced, on average, by nuclear industry workers. A recent study of 100,000 such workers from three countries found a slight increase in leukemia and no increase in other forms of cancer.

---

Hmmm, without the dirt, the pure uranium would be a cube with about 0,174 mm sides, hardly half a teaspoon is it?
Most Uranium is inhaled (about 98%).
And those 630.000 pounds mentioned in the article gives about 2,85 Trillion (US trillion) doses of that size and due to the long half-life of U-238 it will stay there until it's desipitated into the soil.

Not to mention that uranium is also toxic and that the main radiation problem with uranium isn't the substance itself, but the daughter nuclides. Radon-222 for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Wait, wait...you're saying that bullets should be banned because they're hazardous to your health? :inquisitive: Essentially what we're talking about is lead and even standard lead is poisonous to life. One of the elements uranium decomposes to is lead so isn’t all lead depleted uranium? It's just absurd that anyone would think of banning DU. Why don't we just ban rocket propellant and gunpowder because it's toxic if eaten and bad for the environment? :laugh4:

---

A. We aren't even near talking about lead.
B. The issue with DU isn't when it's used for warfare, but that you contaminates the place for at least decades, probably centuries and possibly millenias.

What I remember from uranium decomposition is that it eventually decays to lead (somehow twice, I think...) so we're kinda talking about lead, which can contaminate an area for a very long time. I didn't even read the article because this is an old argument and one without much merit.

No better penetrator has been developed (hardness, target killing ability, cost of manufacture), so it will continue in use.

Some degree of biohazard from continued decay of the uranium is possible, and it seems likely that some degree of contamination from spent rounds occurs. People will accept this as the cost of doing business until the contamination cost exceeds the value of the munition.

Cannon and machine gun fire is not, after all, intended to create easy clean up -- its a tool for killing people and breaking things.

It's the density of the material that counts. That's why it's so good.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

What I remember from uranium decomposition is that it eventually decays to lead (somehow twice, I think...) so we're kinda talking about lead, which can contaminate an area for a very long time. I didn't even read the article because this is an old argument and one without much merit.

---

Huh? The half life of U-238 is about 4,5 billion years, (then it will decay 15 times in about 321000 years). So unless we're talking about about billions years into the future, we're talking about uranium and it's daughter nucleids, not lead.

While I agree with you that the radiation probably isn't the cause of the problems (the toxity of uranium is far more likely), the poor defense in that article makes me think of the tobacco industry a few years back...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

While I agree with you that the radiation probably isn't the cause of the problems (the toxity of uranium is far more likely), the poor defense in that article makes me think of the tobacco industry a few years back...

---

So it's the toxicity that's the problem, not the radiation? Let's see, what other metals have similar toxicity...... lead?

Further, if that's true- it has absolutely nothing to do with the cancer claims in the original article. Renal failure would be the main effect of exposure to high levels of such metals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

So it's the toxicity that's the problem, not the radiation? Let's see, what other metals have similar toxicity...... lead?

Further, if that's true- it has absolutely nothing to do with the cancer claims in the original article. Renal failure would be the main effect of exposure to high levels of such metals.

---

Only a guess, as it usually takes time to develop diseases from radiation, unless the dosages are quite high. How much U-238 does every munition hold?

But the radiation is still an issue, as it increases with time as U-238 in balance with nature is 16 times more radioactive then pure U-238, making older uranium sources more dangerous than newer ones. And unlike Cesium-137, the radiation doesn't really go away with time due to the long half-life.

Does your goverment treat your depleted uranium waste in the same way as lead?

Can't respond on exactly how the toxity of uranium affects the body, haven't red studies about it.

This is from a link I posted earlier:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

During March-June 1999 thousands of 30 millimeter caliber rounds stuffed with depleted-uranium were fired over Kosovo, mainly by the American A-10 aircraft. The core of each round contained about 0.82 kilograms of almost pure uranium-238, from which its 14 radioactive daughters and uranium-235 were separated. This depleted uranium is much less radioactive than natural uranium normally present in the soil and rock.

Natural uranium is in equilibrium with radioactive isotopes of radium, radon, thorium, protoactine, polonium, lead and bismuth. During its decay it emits energetic alpha particles and very weak beta and gamma radiation. Alpha particles have little penetrative power in the air and in human tissues.

The total mass of depleted uranium dispersed over Kosovo was at most 25 tons. The radioactivity of one round was about 10 megabecquerels (MBq). Assuming that 30,000 rounds were fired, about 300,000 MBq of uranium-238 activity were dispersed in Kosovo's environment (10,887 square kilometers). Yet, the natural uranium-238 in a one-centimeter layer of Kosovo soil emits about 100,000,000 MBq. Thus, the surface layer of soil in Kosovo contains about 300 times more natural uranium than was dispersed there by NATO weaponry.

Local concentrations of depleted uranium may be higher than the average concentration of natural uranium in the soil at the target sites. From these patches of activity depleted uranium may be re-suspended into the air, and may also enter the food chain. This, however, should not lead to any observable medical consequences.

The weak beta and gamma radiation does not pose a serious radiation protection problem. In fact, the radiation protection standards for depleted uranium are based on its chemical toxicity, not radiotoxicity. It is similar to other heavy metals (such lead, cadmium, or mercury), and like these other metals at high doses uranium is toxic stuff.

Experimental and epidemiological studies carried out over the past 50 years suggest that the main adverse effect of uranium-238 is a chemical impairment of the renal function. Secondary protection standards for uranium-238 (for example concentration limits in air and food) are based on a limit of 3 micrograms of uranium per gram of kidney.

In epidemiological studies of more than 32,000 nuclear workers exposed to uranium between 1943 and 1986, no other health impairment other than renal problems was observed. Among these workers the general mortality was lower than in general population, and mortality due to all cancers and leukemia was also lower.

Among about 150,000 soldiers, who for various periods of time were in Kosovo between March 1999 and the end of 2000, 17 have so far died due to leukemia. This corresponds to about 11 deaths per 100,000 soldiers. The annual leukemia death rate in the United Kingdom is 11 per 100,000. Thus, the rate of soldiers dying due to leukemia seems to fit the European norm.

A few years ago "clusters" of leukemia were found in several countries, in which morbidity of leukemia was up to 10-fold higher than the general population. The first such cluster was discovered in the village of Seascale, near the Sellafield nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in the UK. The excess was reported in a television program in November 1983 and similar clusters were later found in few other places in Europe, Canada and the US. Initially, radioactive emissions from nuclear installations were suspected to be the cause of the clusters. However, it was realized quite quickly that clusters appear at other non-nuclear sites, where migration of large number of people occurred.

In an extensive review of the issue the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) concluded that a possible explanation for the cluster was the spread of infection resulting from the mixing of populations from urban and rural areas. One might expect such a phenomenon to occur among large military formations. But it seems that this in not the case in Kosovo, where incidence of leukemia rather fits the European norm.

The shortest latency time for leukemia induced by ionizing radiation is two years. As this disease started to appear among the soldiers much earlier, and there were no reports on a dramatic increase of renal problems, the cause of leukemias in Kosovo, does not seem to be radiation of depleted uranium, but rather a natural one.

I'm sorry, I stopped reading after the first sentence:

Quote:

---

During March-June 1999 thousands of 30 millimeter caliber rounds stuffed with depleted-uranium were fired over Kosovo, mainly by the American A-10 aircraft.

---

:inquisitive:

Anyone with any degree of familiarity with munitions realizes that it's either millimeter or caliber, not both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Anyone with any degree of familiarity with munitions realizes that it's either millimeter or caliber, not both.

---

If you want to dismiss an entire article over that I guess it's up to you....Although, caliber just means diameter.

In firearms, the caliber is the diameter of the inside of the barrel. In a rifled barrel the distance is measured between the lands.

If the measurement is in inches then the caliber (abbreviated to cal) is quoted as decimal of an inch, so a (smallbore) rifle with a diameter of 0.22 inch is a .22 cal ("twenty-two caliber").

Calibers of weapons can be referred to in metric, as in a "caliber of eighty-eight millimetres" (88 mm) or "a hundred five-millimetre caliber gun" (sometimes abbreviated as '105 mm gun').

Small arms range in bore size from approximately .17 cal. up to .50 cal. Arms used to hunt big game may be as large as .80 caliber. In the middle of the 19th century, muskets and muzzle-loading rifles were .58 cal or larger.

From Wikipedia.

Xiahou is right - the calibre of a weapon or round is measured in millimetres (or inches or whatever unit of measurement).

Sometimes people use the shorthand of 'nine millimetre pistol' or '155 calibre gun' but it is only shorthand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oxford English Dictionary

calibre

/kalibr/ (US caliber)

• noun 1 quality of character or level of ability. 2 the internal diameter of a gun barrel, or the diameter of a bullet or shell.

---

Yes, but when you see what are usually two mutually exclusive terms strung together it doesn't inspire confidence. Quite often confusing the two can lead to injury or death, i.e. firing a 10mm bullet from a .40 cal pistol, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Yes, but when you see what are usually two mutually exclusive terms strung together it doesn't inspire confidence. Quite often confusing the two can lead to injury or death, i.e. firing a 10mm bullet from a .40 cal pistol, etc.

---

I don't wish to labour the point as we veer off topic, but the terms are not mutually exclusive - each is actually meaningless without the other - a calibre requires the descriptor of a measurement.

In your example, you are still using just the shorthand, which is confusing you. The correct meaning of your sentence is:

..firing a 10 millimetre calibre bullet from a .40 inch calibre pistol..

If you say 'a 10mm bullet' are you saying the bullet is 10mm long, square or what? By convention, most people would accept that you are actually saying it is 10 mm in diameter (calibre).

For brevity's sake, people leave out either the measurement or calibre word, but by doing so they have to know what is being left out. The original article was simply being accurate, using the full descriptor.

Make sense? :smile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I don't wish to labour the point as we veer off topic, but the terms are not mutually exclusive - each is actually meaningless without the other - a calibre requires the descriptor of a measurement.

In your example, you are still using just the shorthand, which is confusing you. The correct meaning of your sentence is:

..firing a 10 millimetre calibre bullet from a .40 inch calibre pistol..

If you say 'a 10mm bullet' are you saying the bullet is 10mm long, square or what? By convention, most people would accept that you are actually saying it is 10 mm in diameter (calibre).

For brevity's sake, people leave out either the measurement or calibre word, but by doing so they have to know what is being left out. The original article was simply being accurate, using the full descriptor.

Make sense? :smile:

---

X-man, Banquo, Vlad:

Be careful lads! If you keep this up, Kraxis will hijack the thread off into the Monastery and it won't stop until we've compared falconets, demi-culverins, 17-pounders, and the ballistic qualities of frozen European Swallows.

Edit: Gah! Got ahead of myself.