Depleted uranium

Originally posted by launchpad
ya know what? burned up magnisium is a white powder. Tank chassis are mostly magnisium (aluminum alloy).

Umm no, Russian tanks are made of steel which is what the Iraqi's were using. The US uses aluminium for the LAV's.

a single anti tank round would not have enough left of it to coat an entire other vehicle especially AFTER a fire which will cause air currents to move the dust around.

A DU tank round survives the intial penetration almost intact, then explodes when it penetrates inside and contacts oxygen, this is called pyrophoric property.
A tank is the ideal container to hold the DU dust unless it has it's turret blown off. Bearing in mind DU is extremely heavy so it would take a strong wind to move it around.

i worked on c-141b's for a long while (to me at least) as a hydraulic specialist and rigger the planes have DU counter weights to all the control surfaces and i spent most of my time around them- no ill effects here.

me thinks you have a higher likelihood of suffering from Radon poisoning - which is a nationwide, near, eppidemic and unranium related......

Originally posted by rogue1
Mate, all these examples you are using have no releveance to the situation in Iraq. Granite miners are not exposed to nearly the same concentrations as a soldier crawling through an Iraqi tank hulk. Actually a miner would experience concentrations thousands of times less than a soldier.

Do you really know what you're talking about ? It doesn't really sound like it.

Um... As it was already stated, a granite worker is exposed to lower concentrations - but probably for thousands of times longer periods. I wouldn't consider myself an expert on DU - but I have an advanced Physics degree and have worked with highly enriched uranium and plutonium at a US DOE national lab.

Let me put it this way - yes, uranium (included depleted uranium) is not a healthy substance. But compared to other materials that make good ammunition, it is actually one of the least poisinous material. Lead, for example, has far more serious documented, proven, effects.

Wars aren't fought with water baloons - some of the things that are used will hurt you in unintended ways. But with regards to DU - the effects claimed by some extremists (with political agenda's) have never - not in one single scientific study - been shown (in the levels and seriousness claimed). Period. End of sentence/paragraph/argument.

[edit on 21-2-2005 by Starwars51]

Your point of workers exposed to 1000 times less c.c but more time is wrong, because you haven't calculated in the equation ability of human lungs to clean themsleves from any dust through time, so worker goes home, far from the working site and his lungs have the time to rest, it has to be really long period for this c.c. to kill him.
In fact every city polution has the same efect but just as long as the lungs have the time to regenerate, it will not kill you, or at least not that fast.
During the combat amount of radioactive dust is far too more for the lungs to heal, this is evnr heavier if repeated bombing takes place, so organism has no chance to go better, and all sort of diseases are developing soon.
All those research is just not really backed up with evidence, I would like to see someone voluntarily exposed to radiotion, these are wild guesses, DU is not used for long enough to know its usage consequences, it was said it takes up to 10 years for diseases to progress. So any reasearch has to be long enough to prove or deny the danger possible. DU DU T is safe trust me! You can even eat it and it will not harm you. Be my guest and eat it if you believe that.

I will once again state as fact:

Depleted uranium still reads as harmful with a radiac meter. If DU was not harmful, why did the Army have the 1 Meter Rule? Why did all personell not working on the weapon system have to stay at a safe distance away, at least 1 meter? Why did we have to wear protective gear (body suits, chemical gloves, and respirators) while we worked with it? Why did we have radioactive containers for the debri? Why were the rings stored in lead containers?

Star, you said you have a mega-physics degree. Then you should very well know that DU still emits alpha and beta particles. Alpha will stop at your skin, but beta penetrates the skin. Prolonged exposure to radiation levels, even at low emission rates, is still enough to cause long term damage.

Don't tell me you didn't know that. If you worked with weapon systems for the DOE, I would like to know which ones do not emit radiation through their cases. Every type I have worked with emitted radiation through their hulls, and even through their storage cases. Once again, this is fact. No hyper-physics degree can tell me what I have seen, and in this case measured, with a radiac meter.

peace

Originally posted by nathraq
I will once again state as fact:

Depleted uranium still reads as harmful with a radiac meter. If DU was not harmful, why did the Army have the 1 Meter Rule? Why did all personell not working on the weapon system have to stay at a safe distance away, at least 1 meter? Why did we have to wear protective gear (body suits, chemical gloves, and respirators) while we worked with it? Why did we have radioactive containers for the debri? Why were the rings stored in lead containers?

Star, you said you have a mega-physics degree. Then you should very well know that DU still emits alpha and beta particles. Alpha will stop at your skin, but beta penetrates the skin. Prolonged exposure to radiation levels, even at low emission rates, is still enough to cause long term damage.

Don't tell me you didn't know that. If you worked with weapon systems for the DOE, I would like to know which ones do not emit radiation through their cases. Every type I have worked with emitted radiation through their hulls, and even through their storage cases. Once again, this is fact. No hyper-physics degree can tell me what I have seen, and in this case measured, with a radiac meter.

peace

Like I said, uranium is not absent of ill efects. But that does not mean that it is overly hazardous. There are federal regulations regarding handling of even low-level material - the Army is simply complying with the law. We all use products that have absurd warnings on them every day (and many when used in industrial environments require strict controls) - does that mean that they could have caused the Gulf war syndrome? Would using, lets say, Windex to clean the windows of Iraqi mosques be a war crime?

With regards to the safeguards in place, they are cheap and required by law. If uranium was that unsafe they would completely discontinue use during training - as was done with lead ammunition. What do you think is cheaper, using a few simple precautionary measures - or defending a lawsuit, even a frivilous one? Also, Uranium-238 does not emit any beta radiation - only alpha and gamma. Some daughter products do - but given the extremely long half life (and hence low radioactivity) these are ucommon in "fresh" DU - which is what you are most likely to come into contact with. Any radiation meter can detect very small amounts of radiation (and very few can easily distinguish between alpha and beta) - and make that look like a very big deal. I don't know what kind of building you work in - but if it is made of stone/granite/marble I would suggest you take a good close up reading on the wall someday. Depending on it's origin, it is likely to be much more radioactive than 100% U-238. It is a fact that workers in Grand Central Station (NY) have a (much) higher occupational radiation exposure than DOE employees who are in "high" (by OSHA standards) radiation areas every day.

I could go on and on. The fact is that we live in an overly litigous environment. Financially, it almost always better to be safe than have 1 worker get a disease that "may" in some lawyers mind be due to a work environment. Awareness and sensible safeguards are always a good idea - but fear and misunderstanding are pointless and do more harm than good.

Starwars you seem to be missing the point. With regards to GF1 it is thought that DU was inhaled by troops. If what you say about DU is true then Gamma rays are dangerous to people.
Sure yoiu could probably pick it up and it wouldn't be too harmful, but when you inhale it - that is another matter.

Which lab did you work at exactly ? Just saying you did doesn't cut it and what ws your work. Don't try and BS, I'll know.

Originally posted by rogue1


Which lab did you work at exactly ? Just saying you did doesn't cut it and what ws your work. Don't try and BS, I'll know.

Exactly where I have worked and what I have done is - to put it mildly - none of your business. If you think what I have said is wrong, go ahead and (gasp) look it up for yourself. You could also try and find some support for your argument. I have supported my statements with indisuputable facts, whereas you have said the same thing, with no scientific support.

Did you by any chance even look at the web site that was quoted at the start of this thread that spurred my original post? Assuming you have a basic working knowledge of the subject - can you honestly say that you think that the argument isn't pure politically motivated propoganda?

Edit - Because you obviously doubt what I have said - here are some (scientific) links regarding U-238, how it decays, etc.

ie.lbl.gov...
Or in simpler terms: www.atral.com...
www.newton.dep.anl.gov...
education.jlab.org...
Which contains the interesting note "It is used as ... as a shield against radiation" - Imagine that. What now, requests for the resume's from every scientist at Jefferson National Lab to ensure they know what they're talking about?
www.bt.cdc.gov...
Which contains the sentence "Depleted uranium (uranium containing mostly U-238) can be used for radiation shielding ... "

This took about 2 minutes with google. Please, educate yourself before you concern yourself with the education of others.

[edit on 21-2-2005 by Starwars51]

Alll that i know is the rotor blades on most Helo's have depleted uranium sluggs in the leading edge and the old h3 helo had a depleted uranium chunk incased in lead in the tail one of the maintenence procedures was to mohnitor the radioactivity and it was recorded in the Aircrafts maintenence log.

what might be harmful is the TYPE of radiation- i think it was mentioned earlier- ALPHA wont hurt you unless ingested, i don't see anyone eating it- or in haled which MAY be te case in this thread; BETA will hurt you if in contact and it is not present in DU.

This talk about the lethality of DU doesn't take into account that tungsten also is toxic. If you get tungsten particles into your body it isn't good for you. This was tested on mice, they all got cancer and died. They are both heavy metals, and the human body doesn't like heavy metals.

Originally posted by Starwars51

Originally posted by rogue1


Which lab did you work at exactly ? Just saying you did doesn't cut it and what ws your work. Don't try and BS, I'll know.

Exactly where I have worked and what I have done is - to put it mildly - none of your business.

Just what I thought, you never worked ina DOE lab . All this crap about working with DU and U235 seemed like crap as soon as you typed it.
Anyone can pull facts off a web page to support there reasoning, but you my friend have no special insight into this subject at all. Your credibility just went down.

we did talk a bit about tungston on the bottom of page one- but the thread is depleted uranium.

one problem with tungsten is the low mass per volume so even though it is very hard it carries very little energy (importsant for a projectile) especially compared the the VERY dense and VERY hard depleted uranium that makes an ideal projectile.

one point in favor is the high melting point of tungsten- the highest of any metal.


Lead = Pb = atomic number 82
Tungsten = W = atomic number 74
Uranium = U = atomic number 92

Originally posted by rogue1


Just what I thought, you never worked ina DOE lab

. All this crap about working with DU and U235 seemed like crap as soon as you typed it.
Anyone can pull facts off a web page to support there reasoning, but you my friend have no special insight into this subject at all. Your credibility just went down.

Yep. You're right, I'm wrong. I must say, your intelligence, knowledge, spelling and grammar have simply amazed me.

Oh, one more thing - would you mind telling me and the rest of the world what exactly you do and where you work? I am waiting ....

Originally posted by launchpad


one point in favor is the high melting point of tungsten- the highest of any metal.

Tungsten is also extremely hard, and does "self-sharpen" like uranium (whereas lead becomes more blunt as it impacts something).

Tungsten is also far more expensive and less common than uranium - and as you pointed out probably is more toxic. It's not called uranium though, so that makes the enviro's happy.

BTW - Tungsten has been used for a very long time in armor piercing ammunition, the US (and probably others) used it in WWII.

Originally posted by Starwars51
If you feel this stongly about DU - here's a web page that you will be really scared of (and all of it's information is actually factual) www.dhmo.org...

Ha, great link. I've given that link to gullible people before who don't research stuff before spewing out "facts." It's the truth though, people will believe in anything as long as other people are doing it - the herd mentality. People will even go so far as to ban water because other people are doing it. And for those who like to ban things without doing research: Dihydrogen Monoxide is H2O - water.

Originally posted by Starwars51


Yep. You're right, I'm wrong. I must say, your intelligence, knowledge, spelling and grammar have simply amazed me.

Oh, one more thing - would you mind telling me and the rest of the world what exactly you do and where you work? I am waiting ....

I'm not the one making claims to have worked in the industry, you are. If you were the floor janitor, just say so, at least you'd be being honest.

Well, I'm flattered If after just reading a few posts of mine, that you are in awe of me.

What I do is irrelevant, I wsn't the one making claims to have worked in the industry - you were. Suffice to say that I am ex military and now work for the family company.



[edit on 24-2-2005 by rogue1]

Originally posted by Starwars51

BTW - Tungsten has been used for a very long time in armor piercing ammunition, the US (and probably others) used it in WWII.

It was used by all major combatants except the Japanese, to varying degrees based on supply.

Depleted uranium is good, because it's effective againts tanks, but is bad because it gives off a load of radiation into the atmosphere when released!

Originally posted by Nexus
Depleted uranium is good, because it's effective againts tanks, but is bad because it gives off a load of radiation into the atmosphere when released!

It is good,but does not give off lots of radiation. The problem is that when DU turns into powder it gets inhaled,and you can probably guess what happens after that. Inhaling uranium is worse then eating it.

What's in depleted uranium to make it such a good tankbuster? And how does the shell work [positions of uranium etc...].